Al Qaeda Down to Less than 100 in Afghanistn. We Need 40k more Working Class Troops

That is true but considering we fought a whole unnecessary war and occupation during the last 8 years it shouldn't be a surprise that we have done a terrible job on nation building in Afghanistan.

I fully agree that its a risky proposition to try to build a country in Afghanistan but given what we saw previously it may be worth it. Also considering that just leaving the job half done may make things worse in further embittering the people of that region.

Al Qaeda can goes somewhere else and as I've said before we shouldn't consider Afghanistan as the only front against them but we know that they are just as interested in Afghanistan as we are.

Sudan isn't exactly lawless and at the sametime the government of Sudan was receptive to diplomatic and other pressure. The Taliban government wasn't and had been given numerous chances to negotiate with the rest of the World. For whatever reason they chose to continue to host Al Qada even in the threat of war.

I agree that we f-ed up in Somalia and at the moment I don't know what we are doing there but given the pretty much permanent US present in Djibouti it is clearly an area of concern.

Also as I said earlier just because we are in Afghanistan doesn't mean we shouldn't and aren't pursuing Al Qaeda in other locations.

I don't believe its going to be easy at all. Its going to be very hard but given the history of Afghanistan we know that not doing anything has also lead to terrible consequences.

True but we know for a fact that Pashtun Shaheeds sheltered and allied themselves with the organizers of the 9/11 bombers. Taking your analogy we could say that we shouldn't have gone to war with Germany in WWII since no Germans were involved in Pearl Harbor.

I'm not totally sold on the McChrystal plan but withdrawing and relying on air power doesn't seem like a good answer to me. We know that one of the biggest sore points in Afghanistan is the amount of civillian casualties from the reliance on air power along with the failure to provide security on the ground.

What I would like to see is somesort of approach where the Afghani institutions can start to take over more of their own security while Pakistan cooperates more fully in the boarder region. My own feeling though is that neither are going to happen until we can improve the security situation.

 

I sure hope he turns down the request. Army morale only exists in fuzzy newspaper articles at this point. Many ground troops are already on their fourth tour. A call for 40,000 more troops will definitely tack on another two tours, and you can expect a huge bump in desertions and suicides.

If I were to guess, I'd say the white house keeps the number of troops the same, and relies on Clinton style containment - use intelligence gathering to locate pockets of al-qaeda in pakistan, send cruise missile, repeat...

 

germany declared war on the u.s. - wasnt this a popular rationale that neo-con wannabes used to justify the bush doctrine (going to war w/ countries that didnt attack you first). come on judoka, youre better than this!

 

I knew someone would bring that up. The Germans were allied with the Japanese just as the Taliban are allied to Al Qaeda and hosted them. Ottomaton's argument is that no Pashtuns were involved in 9/11. That is true but the primarily Pashtun Taliban was their ally and benefactor. That is far different from the Bush doctrine since there was no credible evidence that Saddam Hussein was allied or aided Al Qaeda.

 

Please don't compare Germany with al qaeda. Al Qaeda has no means to achieve world domination.

 

that analogy only works if the japanese fleet had been based out of and trained in germany, which clearly wasnt the case.

japan and germany were allied, but germany provided no help to japan in their attack on pearl harbor. from what i understand, hitler was actually shocked that japan did that, but since they were bound by treaty he declared war on the u.s. after we declared war on japan.

the comparison to the al-qaeda/afghanistan/taliban situation is just not valid. as you said, the taliban hosted al-qaueda. germany never had that kind of direct tie to japan or the attack on pearl.

i brought up the bush doctrine/preemptive war thing b/c when confronted w/ the fact that iraq was not a threat and we should not have invaded them, neocon-wannabes would often cite the fact that germany never attacked us. it is not a valid comparison at all, imo.

 

Afghanistan is a disaster. But an immediate withdrawal now or within the next two years would be an even bigger disaster.

I'll give you a couple of concrete reasons...

1. NATO would feel abandoned and member countries will DEFINITELY be giving less international support for Obama foreign policy initiatives in the short term; considering the lack of tangible things Obama has accomplished anywhere, this would be ruination. Reliable countries willing to take the burden of a couple of Guantanamo prisoners, just as an example, may just close their borders. Canada's table for withdrawal begins in 2011 and right now, of the big NATO countries, it is the only one with a tangible withdrawal plan. However, an immediate withdrawal/drawback would leave Canadian troops in Kandahar with much less support years before the deadline. Leaving now would leave every NATO member there in the lurch.

Sure, you say, the people of Europe would love America once again! But we're not talking about the people, who can hold Obama lovefests all they want; we're talking about their leaders, who will have egg on their face.

2. The Taliban.

In every war, the heuristic device of Vietnam can be used to mention disastrous interventions. I submit to you the case of Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge as an example of what can happen with hastily arranged withdrawals. YES, the American occupation did make things worse and things easier for the Khmer Rouge, but this is a fait accompli already in Afghanistan. We're talking about what should happen NOW. And what can't happen is a withdrawal motivated by emotion. Do not underestimate the horrific genocidal potential of the Taliban.

3.Reconfirms America's powerlessness to stop potential future genocidal organizations.

Right now, this withdrawal would be constituted as an utter failure. I'm not saying a couple of years can completely change this fact, but maybe a bit more stability, a coordinated drawdown between NATO allies who have been given time to establish their objectives and all that could be interpreted, if not as a victory, then not as an utter panicked defeat. And as such, maybe we won't have the typical introversion that comes with American defeats...remember Somalia and the deliberate effort of the Clinton administration afterward to not intervene in Rwanda, which we now know cost up to 800,000 lives.

Organizations like the Lord's Resistance Army will continue doing their thing (kidnapping child soldiers, causing atrocities in five African nations etc.) as long as they know no one can stop them.

 

Its not an issue of capability. THe analogy was narrowly stated in regard to that allies of an enemy are considered enemies in a state of war.

 

As you state it that makes the case for attacking the Taliban even more credible than it does Germany in WWII as you note that the Taliban gave direct material support whereas Germany did not.

I agree we should not have invaded Iraq as Iraq had no connection with Al Qaeda. My point remains that in a state of war the allies of an enemy become our enemy.

Let me reverse this analogy. Was it correct for Germany to declare war on the US when the US was giving material support to its enemies?

 

Well put and some excellent reasons why we shouldn't withdrawl precipitously.

That said I don't blame those who think we should pull out of Afghanistan quickly. War is a terrible thing and I don't like it anymore than Glynch or anyone else who is advocating a withdrawl. In the case of Afghanistan though I believe it is a war for a valid reasons and as unsavory as it is it has to be fought.

 

It was less of a waste but more of a gamble than Iraq. We're always going to want to be involved in Afghanistan, hopefully down the road it's more on an education, investment and infrastructure basis.

 

You realize Gates actually has questions about the need for more troops, and certainly a large number of them, right? Or do you assume Gates = Republican = must automatically support the opposing view?

 

I find it laughable when someone tries to give me a straight face and says "maximum estimate is down to less than 100 Al Qaeda in Afghanistan". Honestly, how the hell would anyone know that figure? That would imply that you know where they are and you sent out census workers to get numbers or something. Also, that number is meaningless because, at any time, they can just cross over from Pakistan. Maximum estimate my ass!

I would have to be a gullible idiot to believe someone saying something like that. My maximum estimate for the person who said that is they take five craps a day. That's what my sources tell me. Jagoff.

 

I would really, really love to see you say all this to his face:



I would even assist in taking you to the hospital afterwards.

Considering he is the National Security Advisor, I would imagine he probably has the best intel the US Government can obtain on the enemy.

 

true. but again, germany declared war on us first and fdr was wanting to get involved in the european theatre anyway. hitler just gave him the excuse to do so. i know i was being nit-picky w/ the inital post, but i just dont think you can compare the situations.

i agree, but could there be degrees to which allies of ones enemy becomes your enemy? you dont always go to war w/ a nation b/c they may be giving support to your enemy. if so, russia would have been justified in attacking the u.s. in the late 70's since we were supporting the afghans.

im not going to attempt to rationalize anything hitler did - but germany didnt declare war on us for giving material support to the brits - they declared war on us after we declared war on japan. i may be confusing WWI and WWII history, but werent german u-boats constantly attacking american shipping AND passenger ships before we entered the war? but that was before a formal declaration of war had been issued by either side. on that note, one could argue that we should have declared war on germany after they began sinking our boats, especially passenger liners.

either way, i think we are in agreement as far as afghanistan. dont half-ass it...thats the rumsfeld way. either give the generals what they need or just get everyone out.

bush got criticized b/c he said he listened to his generals when he really was beholden to the civilian leadership (rummy). now obama is behaving in a similar manner - its the general that he picked who is asking for the additional troops and claiming he has only met w/ obama once since getting the job. i dont understand what the debate is - if the general says he needs it and obama is committed to listening to the generals, as he said on the campaign trail, than what is the hold-up?

 

Where are the WMDs? The US intelligence community is as good as the inquirer.

 

It is pretty well established that the fault there was the politicians who bent the intel for their own goals and then tried to scapegoat the intelligence community when caught. See Cheney, Dick.

 

He looks like an old man to me. Am I supposed to be afraid because he has a horse face? I have no doubt that, at one time, there were less than a hundred. Just not when this particular fellow and his intelligence wants us to believe it. Like I said, any estimate like that is bogus the way those folks cross borders.