1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Obama to announce decision on Afghanistan next Tuesday

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by rocketsjudoka, Nov 24, 2009.

  1. Ottomaton

    Ottomaton Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2000
    Messages:
    19,198
    Likes Received:
    15,367
    Keep in mind, the McChrystal Report projects this as just the first of many troop increases. It requires an end number of, IIRC, 500,000 effective US IFOR and Afghan forces (I think the total number of Afghan troops is currently just over 100,000 but only 1/4 of that is effective and many of the 100,000 only exist on paper). I think there are 60,000 or so US troops in Afghanistan currently (again, off the top of my head).

    If he signs off on this one, he is tentatively signing off on the McChrystal plan that requires many, many more escalations in Afghanistan, such that troop presences will increase by nearly an order of magnitude. This is about more than "just" 40,000 bodies. It is about increasing the future commitment of troops, funds, and effort in Afghanistan several times over. It is the first step in ramping things way up in Afghanistan.
     
  2. SamFisher

    SamFisher Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    61,851
    Likes Received:
    41,351
    I would assume that this troop increase is tied to benchmarks which would have to be reached before anymore - guess we'll find out in a few days
     
  3. Bandwagoner

    Bandwagoner Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Messages:
    27,105
    Likes Received:
    3,757
    If he pulled them out of that crap hole it sure would, right? Instead of putting more in?
     
  4. dmc89

    dmc89 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    3,816
    Likes Received:
    255
    From the National Interest's article on "Getting out of Afghanistan"

    "To begin, 40,000 more troops, which would bring the combined U.S. and NATO force to 140,000, wouldn¹t be enough to conduct an effective counterinsurgency. The historical standard for counterinsurgency is 20 troops per 1,000 civilians. This is the standard recognized in the COIN manual written in large part by General David Petraeus, now head of U.S. Central Command and McChrystal’s superior officer. The population of Afghanistan is more than 32 million. An effective counterinsurgency would require 640,000 troops—more than the entire U.S. Army active-duty force (548,000) and nearly the combined total of the active-duty army and Marine Corps (749,000)."

    http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=22432
     
  5. Kim

    Kim Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 1999
    Messages:
    9,286
    Likes Received:
    4,178
    I'm talking about preset time. No practical way for him to have made any decision within the last month that prevents the troops being killed now (last couple of weeks). You can't just pull out fast like that.

    Look, I'm against this war and think it's just generally a tradition of wasted spending, but we have a volunteer military. You can't say consenting adults didn't sign up for this possibility.

    This country has an Army that hates to fight and Marine Corps that loves to fight. Morale surveys show evidence of this (I have the links somewhere in my emails). I have friends who are over there now who think that the US doesn't even need an Army, that it's just a big waste of money and space.

    There are a select few in this country who are hard wired to put their life on the lines and be willing to die in a battle. They generally make up the Marine Corps, and the elites of the other branches. I'm completely in favor of making Afghanistan/Pakistan a special forces war and thought that this used to be the strategy of choice. I've gone off on a tangent.
     
  6. Dubious

    Dubious Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2001
    Messages:
    18,318
    Likes Received:
    5,090
    The deal with Iraq and Afghanistan is that it's not a war you can just go use the mass destructive power of the US Army. If we were talking about using brigade sized armored columns to over run an organized defense (collateral damage be damned) they are great for that.

    In these quagmires you can't tell who the combatants are, which side they are on today and the every casualty among the the intermingled civilians is a propaganda nightmare.

    If it were just about bombing and killing these things would be over in months.
    But nation building, among primitive people, with a totally differnt culture and religion and a two thousand year history of a 'warlord' political structure that resists any centralized power... now that's whats hard. And not really the job for 20 year olds trained to kill. (I don't know who it's a job for really)

    We may debate the cost and benefits of the whole idea (probably too late at this point) but if the bringing the rule of law to the region is our national goal, then what we are doing is about the only thing that can be done. The process is slow deliberate and costly and there will be no victory parades.
     
  7. glynch

    glynch Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Messages:
    18,075
    Likes Received:
    3,605
    Obama is overcome with hubris, lack of guts or lack of experience. We need an Eishenauer or at least a Carter, who was a Naval Academy graduate at this moment. Someone who can tell the militarists "no" and who is not overly impressed by their medals and military bearing.

    To be fair, LBJ a very experinced and good hearted politician also made this mistake when advised by the alleged big brains of his day including all the various generals who looked just as impressive on TV as McChrystal and Petraeus etc. McNamara was an extradordinarily intelligent man who was at least as well educated and talented as Gates, Emmanuel and the other advisors around Obama.

    Obama also lacks the guts to say "no" and be the guy who "loses" Afghansitan on his watch or at least in his first term. He took the easy way out as advised by his electoral political advisors like Emmanuel who is a nut on the Middle East. Afghanistan will be "lost" any way and will continue on its backwards ways for at least a generation or two whether we pull out immediately or muck around for another 8 years or more.

    At best Obama can declare some sort of victory before he completely bothces his term in office and get out after he deems it acceptable from an electoral politics point of view.

    Shame on Obama, but sadly he is better than the party of Dubya and Palin.
     
  8. Dubious

    Dubious Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2001
    Messages:
    18,318
    Likes Received:
    5,090
    Shame?

    The man was elected as Chief Executive of the most political entity in the world and took over responsibilities for two conflicts on the opposite side of the globe. There are inumerable considerations for every strategic move including the nuanced perception of the world community with implications for international relations that may last for generations.

    It's not a simple choice of stay or pull out. It's more about how much scarifice is warranted to stave off chaos and promote civilization. You might think it's a just a land of bandits on the other side of the world but it's already proven that the effects are felt everywhere on this one planet we live on.

    Somewhere above in this thread Bigtexx was gloating about Obama's approval rating being under 50%. I would ask you, as compared to whom? Who else would Americans want in charge of these decisions? I'm happy to let Obama do it, he's doing as well as could be expected.
     
    #28 Dubious, Nov 26, 2009
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2009
  9. Sweet Lou 4 2

    Sweet Lou 4 2 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    39,183
    Likes Received:
    20,334
    I actually favor sending as many troops as possible. 100K, 200k, 300k, whatever can be sent.

    This is the most important war of this young century, and perhaps since WWII. We have more at stake here than we've had in any other war in terms of national security.

    The Taliban incubated the terrorist group that hit our homeland and is still determined to do so. The Taliban has called for the destruction of America.

    To lose this war is not an option. The soon and faster we increase troops to wipe these guys out, the better. This isn't about politics.

    I have been disappointed with the delay Obama has acted with. He should have forced Karzai out and then gone full on to defeat the Taliban. Karzai is not legit. He is a corrupt politician who won a rigged election.
     
  10. Al Calavicci

    Al Calavicci Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2009
    Messages:
    1,243
    Likes Received:
    87
    I am in favor of heavily training more soldiers to be one man killing machines. Like a commando or Rambo type dude. Because you send one guy out there and the terrorists wouldn't be afraid to just come out and attack them. (Then they get brutally murdered by Rambo soldier) Then after you win the war they'll just go retire in a swamp or something somewhere and you can just force them to come back next time you need something.

    You could reduce the numbers of soldiers in the field 10 or 100 fold. Obama is really behind on this idea, I'm disappointed.
     
  11. Convictedstupid

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2008
    Messages:
    4,963
    Likes Received:
    512
    And talk about UFOs right? ;)
     
  12. pgabriel

    pgabriel Educated Negro

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    43,789
    Likes Received:
    3,708

    I used to be of this opinion but I've sinced changed mine. The fact is 9-11 was a law enforcement failure because of the lack of communciation between the different law enforcement agencies. Afghanistan isn't a country right across our border with Al Queda members lobbing bombs at our border city. That doesn't mean I disagree with the other security reasons to be there, but its just not logical to argue we have to fight the terrorists there. We have to prevent the terrorists who are on our homeland.
     
  13. ChrisBosh

    ChrisBosh Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2006
    Messages:
    4,326
    Likes Received:
    301

    Good post.



    At what point does sending troops to an unwinnable war become a national security risk in itself?
     
  14. Northside Storm

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    11,262
    Likes Received:
    450
    Will be very interesting to see the NATO response to this situation. It'll really be a litmus test of Obama's international influence.

    That said, pensive or not, I get the feeling that a LOT of momentum was lost. Not only were American soldiers stranded out there, but so were NATO allies and their willingness to commit additional troops. Hopefully the deliberation produces something concrete enough that everyone can get on board. Otherwise...gotta say the Obama Administration is really killing itself with inconsistency. Collapsing banks were an emergency that required no deliberation and swift action but apparently the deteriorating Afghan situation and dead American troops weren't enough of a cause for concern. I think reflection is good...but you gotta be able to have a reasonable timetable for these things.
     
  15. glynch

    glynch Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Messages:
    18,075
    Likes Received:
    3,605
    Yeah the Taliban is so much stronger than a nuclear armed Soviet Union ever was.
     
  16. rocketsjudoka

    rocketsjudoka Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    58,168
    Likes Received:
    48,335
    And replaced Karzai with who? His foreign minister? Wouldn't that also be seen as an undemocratic intervention in Afghanistan when considering that polls showed that even without the fraud Karzai still probably would've won but he didn't want to have a runoff.
     
  17. rocketsjudoka

    rocketsjudoka Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    58,168
    Likes Received:
    48,335
    Some great post Dubious. I still believe that Afghanistan is important and we will have to stay in Afghanistan but I also recognize that it is a sh^tstorm. I have my doubts about McChrystal's strategy but will wait to hear what the President's plan is on Tuesday before condeming or praising whatever strategy we take.
     
  18. rocketsjudoka

    rocketsjudoka Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    58,168
    Likes Received:
    48,335
    We are talking about the same Eisenhower who sent advisors to Vietnam, armed and was instrumental in the creation of the South Vietnam and the Diem regime? Also the same Carter that undertook a poorly thought out military mission to rescue the hostages in Iran and under whose Admin. began the arming of the Mujahadeen to fight the Soviets?

    I think LBJ had a lot of other reasons to escalate in Vietnam besides how impressive the Generals looked on TV. Remember LBJ did say no to Gen. Curtis LeMay in regard to using nukes so he wasn't completely bound by generals.

    Also I am surprised to see you taking the tact of criticizing LBJ for listening to extraordinarily intelligent men. Weren't you criticizing the last Admin. for not listening to intelligent men but instead going with their gut?

    You seem to be looking at Obama's decision to remain in Afghanistan as being solely driven by politics. Have you considered that perhaps Obama might actually believe that staying in Afghanistan is the right thing? You seem to be presuming that Obama at his heart is a pacifist who has been swayed by generals and politcal advisors when this might not be the case at all.
     
  19. pgabriel

    pgabriel Educated Negro

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    43,789
    Likes Received:
    3,708

    dealing with collasping banks and dealing with afghanistan are slightly different issues. the banks needed liquidity, as complicated as the products that got them into the situation they were in, the solution was quite simple, either let the fail or not
     
  20. rocketsjudoka

    rocketsjudoka Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    58,168
    Likes Received:
    48,335
    Here is the Administrations plans that Obama is going to present tonight.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34218604/ns/politics-white_house

    Administration outlines Afghan war endgame
    Official: U.S. troops will start leaving region 'well before' end of first term

    NBC News and news services
    updated 22 minutes ago
    WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama plans to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan over six months, an accelerated timetable — with an endgame built in — that would have the first Marines there as early as Christmas, a senior administration official told The Associated Press.

    U.S. troops are expected to start leaving the region "well before" the end of Obama's first term, the AP reported Tuesday. A senior government official told NBC contributor Col. Jack Jacobs that the president believes that a transition from American-led combat to Afghan leadership of the effort will begin in July 2011.

    With the full complement of new troops expected to be in Afghanistan by next summer, the heightened pace of Obama's military deployment in the 8-year-old war appears to mimic the 2007 troop surge in Iraq, a 20,000-strong force addition under former President George W. Bush. Similar in strategy to that mission, Obama's Afghan surge aims to reverse gains by Taliban insurgents and to secure population centers in the volatile south and east parts of the country.

    In a prime-time speech to the nation Tuesday night from West Point that ends a 92-day review, Obama will seek to help sell his much bigger, costlier war plan by tying the escalation to an exit strategy, said the official who spoke on condition of anonymity.

    By laying out a rough timeframe and some dates for when the main U.S. military mission would end, as well as emphasizing stepped-up training for Afghan forces, the president was acknowledging the increasingly divided public opinion over continued American participation in the stalemated war.

    "We want to — as quickly as possible — transition the security of the Afghan people over to those national security forces in Afghanistan," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told ABC's "Good Morning America." "This can't be nation-building. It can't be an open-ended forever commitment."

    With U.S. casualties in Afghanistan sharply increasing and little sign of progress, the war Obama once liked to call one "of necessity," not choice, has grown less popular with the public and within his own Democratic party. In recent days, leading Democrats have talked of setting tough conditions on deeper U.S. involvement, or even staging outright opposition.

    The displeasure on both sides of the aisle was likely to be on display when congressional hearings on Obama's strategy get under way later in the week on Capitol Hill.

    In his speech and in meetings overseas in the coming days, Obama also will ask NATO allies to contribute more — between 5,000 and 10,000 new troops — to the separate international force in Afghanistan, diplomats said.

    One official from a European nation said the troop figure was included in an official NATO document compiled on the basis of information received from Washington ahead of Obama's announcement. The NATO force in Afghanistan now stands at around 40,000 troops.

    The 30,000 new U.S. troops will bring the total in Afghanistan to more than 100,000 U.S. forces by next summer. New infusions of U.S. Marines will begin moving into Afghanistan almost as soon as Obama announces a redrawn battle strategy.

    The president's long-awaited troop increase had been envisioned to take place over a year, or even more, because force deployments in Iraq and elsewhere make it logistically difficult, if not impossible, to go faster. But Obama directed his military planners to make the changes necessary to hasten the Afghanistan additions, said the official, who declined to be publicly identified because the formal announcement of details was still pending.
    Officials were not specific on the withdrawal date that Obama has in mind nor the changes the military will be required to make to get the troop deployments into Afghanistan on the president's new, speedier timeline.

    Military officials said at least one group of Marines is expected to deploy within two or three weeks of Obama's announcement, and would be in Afghanistan by Christmas. This initial infusion is a recognition by the administration that something tangible needs to happen quickly, military officials said.

    The new Marines would provide badly needed reinforcements to those fighting against Taliban gains in the southern Helmand province. They also could lend reassurance to both Afghans and a war-weary U.S. public.

    Obama's announcement comes near the end of a year in which the war has worsened despite the president's infusion of 21,000 forces earlier this year. He began rolling out his decision Sunday night, informing key administration officials, military advisers and foreign allies in a series of private meetings and phone calls that stretched into Monday.

    Previewing a narrative the president is likely to stress, Gibbs told ABC that the number of fresh troops don't tell the whole story. Obama will emphasize that Afghan security forces need more time, more schooling and more U.S. combat backup to be up to the job on their own.

    "We're going to accelerate going after al-Qaida and its extremist allies," Gibbs said. "We'll accelerate the training of an Afghan national security force, a police and an army."

    In Kabul, Lt. Gen. William B. Caldwell, the new head of a U.S.-NATO command responsible for training and developing Afghan soldiers and police, said Tuesday that although the groundwork is being laid to expand the Afghan National Army beyond the current target of 134,000 troops, to be reached by Oct. 31, 2010, no fixed higher target is set.

    There is a notional goal of eventually fielding 240,000 soldiers and 160,000 police, but Caldwell said that could change.

    "Although that is a goal and where we think it could eventually go to, it's not a hard, firm, fixed number," he said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press.

    He indicated that one reason for avoiding a hard-and-fast commitment to those higher numbers is the expected cost. So his orders are to reach the targets of 134,000 soldiers and 96,800 police by next October. He intends to hold annual reviews, beginning next spring or early summer, to determine whether the notional higher targets of 240,000 soldiers and 160,000 police — for a combined total of 400,000 by 2013 — are still the right goals for Afghanistan.

    "If you grow it up to 400,000 — if you did grow all the way to that number, and if it was required to help bring greater security to this country — then of course you have to sustain it at that level, too, in terms of the cost of maintaining a force that size," he said. Nearly all the cost of building Afghan forces has been borne by the U.S. and other countries thus far.

    Obama also will make tougher demands on the governments of Pakistan and, especially, Afghanistan.

    The Afghan government said Tuesday that President Hamid Karzai and Obama had an hourlong video conference. Obama was also going to speak with Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari.

    In Afghanistan, rampant government corruption and inefficiency have made U.S. success much harder. Obama was expected to place tough conditions on Karzai's government.

    Obama was spending much of Monday and Tuesday on the phone, outlining his plan — minus many specifics — for the leaders of France, Britain, Germany, Russia, China, India, Denmark, Poland and others. He also met in person at the White House with Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.

    A briefing for dozens of key lawmakers was planned for Tuesday afternoon, just before Obama was set to leave the White House for the speech against a military backdrop.
     

Share This Page