Afghanistan, more troops?

[392cobra]

Originally Posted by Jamo

Well...Pakistan already has the bomb.

Taliban is a different creature than al-Queda...like diarrhea and constipation. They both gotta go.

New White House spin: Taliban not really an enemy, has role in Afghanistan’s Future

No foolin’.They’re looking for any way they can to avoid giving McChrystal the troops he says he needs to secure the country, so they’ve come up with a way out. If the people we’ve been fighting for eight years aren’t the enemy, then the country no longer needs to be secured from them, does it?
In other words, rather than eat crap by forthrightly admitting he’s prepared to abandon huge swaths of the country to Islamist fascists rather than invest another 40,000 troops, he’s going to create an artificial distinction between the Taliban and Al Qaeda to let him save face by claiming he’s focused on “the real enemy.” Much like how he was focused during the campaign on “the good war” in Afghanistan rather than “the bad war” in Iraq. I wonder how long it’ll be before he decides that not everyone who’s in Al Qaeda is an enemy either — or, better yet, that AQ’s been “substantially defeated” or something, which has been the unstated thrust of all those WH-leaked pieces in the press lately about how weak Bin Laden’s gang has become. Why, I’ll bet in a year or so we’ll be told that they’re so weak that we can start pulling out of Afghanistan altogether. Things sure have improved over there since Bush was president, huh?

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/0...istans-future/

[fsstnotch]

the Taliban was once a very positive impact to this region. However, power and corruption destroyed it. Now, they feed on these poor people. Charge them a tax for breathing and take whatever they want, whenever they want, not to mention provide something like 90% of the opiads to the world!

Hey, they're trying to legalize Marijuana, maybe they'll go ahead and legalize heroin too! haha Then guess who would become a world power......

[VRM]

This is just colossally bad...we went from a president who thought it was a good idea to attack anybody who looked at us funny to a president who wants peace at any cost.
Are we capable of electing somebody even a little bit rational?

Steve

[Excaliber]

Wow, this is a surprising development, less emphasis on the Taliban more on Al Queda in PAKISTAN. The numbers I heard were like a 100 Al Q in Afghan and thousands in Pakistan. As the primary target has always been Al Q I can see the logic in focusing our efforts there (Pakistan).

It's leaves me sad for the Afghan people though, the Taliban are SO brutal, so radical. But countries and the world are filled with evil people, corruption and suffering. We simply do not have the resources to address all of it. Reality is, we may to accept the fact that the Taliban will have a say in the Afghan Government, that really stinks.

[VRM]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

Wow, this is a surprising development, less emphasis on the Taliban more on Al Queda in PAKISTAN. The numbers I heard were like a 100 Al Q in Afghan and thousands in Pakistan. As the primary target has always been Al Q I can see the logic in focusing our efforts there (Pakistan).

It's leaves me sad for the Afghan people though, the Taliban are SO brutal, so radical. But countries and the world are filled with evil people, corruption and suffering. We simply do not have the resources to address all of it. Reality is, we may to accept the fact that the Taliban will have a say in the Afghan Government, that really stinks.

I do not like what the Taliban have done to that country and its people, but it is not our job to police everything.

The Taliban had the choice to either hand over Al Quaida or end up on the bad guy list themselves. I understand Muslim rules about hospitality, but I also understand Muslim rules on killing innocents.

Bush made the right choice in adding the Taliban to the bad guy list - they need to stay there.

Unless Obama wants to suck in the Taliban and use them against Al Quaida, and then take wipe out the Taliban after Al Quaida is taken care of. Nahhhh... what was I thinking!!

Steve

[Excaliber]

From what I understand this plan does NOT involve "abandoning" the Taliban war aspect entirely. We will continue to monitor their level of activity and take limited action as the need arises. The consensus seem to be that there is no immediate danger of the Afghan Government falling, that could change in the future. The Afghan country poses no immediate threat to the USA whereas Al Queda does. If Pakistan falls to Al Q that is a far more serious a threat to our national security than if Afghanistan falls to the Taliban.

[Jamo]

Gee guys, what's the matter? Don't you think having the Taliban around will provide a buffer against Iran? Brutal? But leaving Saddam in would've been the smart move?

[VRM]

Originally Posted by Jamo

But leaving Saddam in would've been the smart move?

Well, gee...Scowcroft (a guy with a lot more expertise on the subject matter than any of us) thought so.

[Jamo]

Hmmm....same guy who toasted the Chinese after the man-tank battle in T-square. He let Saddam be the first time.

Last guy on earth I'd cite as an example of making correct decisions.

[392cobra]

Perhaps the Taliban,who aren't our enemies anymore,will teach us how to keep our women in the kitchen and the bedroom once again.

[Excaliber]

Gross exaggeration of course. The Taliban firmly remains an enemy to be reckoned with.

When the house is burning down, you got to set priorities.

[Sharroll Celby]

Saddam WAS a LOCAL threat only. We lost over 4500 troops for no real reason, other than to make Iran stronger (with one less enemy on their border.)
Bush apparently didnt learn ANYTHING from fighting in Vietnam, where we were fighting non-uniformed enemies. SAME thing in Iraq. We need better INTEL, go in with drones or small Seal teams, do our damage, and get the phuck out. But NO, dumbass Bush and now dumbass Obama want to put more troops in that quicksand pit of the Middle East.
The USSR, as strong as they were in the 80's, could not win a damn thing in Afghanistan; now here WE go, not able to win a damn thing there 25 years later.

We should just buy their oil, and lob the occasional cruise missile at certain targets.

[Excaliber]

Obama want to put more troops in that quicksand...

He does? Dang, I missed the latest War Room meeting, how many troops is he putting in and when?

[BeanCounter]

Damn, why can't Celby be president. He'd fix everything.

[Fordzilla]

http://www.military.com/news/article...ith-obama.html

[Excaliber]

That was a good read Fordzilla. "MChrystal Light", less filling than 40,000 troops. Actually I understand McC originally wanted 60,000 and was told "wouldn't happen, don't even go there" and paired the number down to 40.

[Fordzilla]

Thanks, I thought it was a good read too. This paragraph sums up nicely the current debate:

"The current debate is broadly bookended by two options: "double down" and send tens of thousands more US troops to mount a proper counterinsurgency, committing American resources for at least a decade to essentially build a nation from scratch, or walk back to a more targeted counterterrorism strategy that would conduct intelligence-driven attacks against Al Qaeda with minimal American "footprint." A third option, thought to be the most risky, is a hybrid of the two."

[fsstnotch]

Originally Posted by Sharroll Celby

Saddam WAS a LOCAL threat only. We lost over 4500 troops for no real reason, other than to make Iran stronger (with one less enemy on their border.)
Bush apparently didnt learn ANYTHING from fighting in Vietnam, where we were fighting non-uniformed enemies. SAME thing in Iraq. We need better INTEL, go in with drones or small Seal teams, do our damage, and get the phuck out. But NO, dumbass Bush and now dumbass Obama want to put more troops in that quicksand pit of the Middle East.
The USSR, as strong as they were in the 80's, could not win a damn thing in Afghanistan; now here WE go, not able to win a damn thing there 25 years later.

We should just buy their oil, and lob the occasional cruise missile at certain targets.

Do you seriously think this is something that is/has not already done? It is/was.... and it's not working effectively. Why you ask? Because everytime there is a civilian casualty, the news is all over us! The only thing that has been effective thus far is like we did last month where we dropped a few thousand Marines off outside of a Taliban stronghold of Helmand and pushed through, eliminating ALOT of the enemy and driving the rest out. Now theres the task of HOLDING that area for a time until the locals feel safe again and begin to trust in what we are doing. This is where it get's dangerous.... Often times we are left with teams of 5-15 soldiers manning areas getting attacked by 50-100 insurgents... are we seeing the problem yet?

[SP01715]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

That was a good read Fordzilla. "MChrystal Light", less filling than 40,000 troops. Actually I understand McC originally wanted 60,000 and was told "wouldn't happen, don't even go there" and paired the number down to 40.

He actually wanted closer to 150k, but was told not to ask for more than 50k. This was according to an officer that works inside the pentagon as an analyst dealing with troop levels.

[Scott S]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

I've heard some estimates that up to 400,000 troops will be needed to stabilize the country. Obviously we can't do that, they would have to come from the Afghan's.

Yes we can if we start sending every Afghan and Pakistani here on a visa back home to clean up their own country before we let them back in.

I can deal with not having a Slushy for awhile.

Bring our troops home now!