Baracka Obambam should be announcing his new commitment in Afghanistan tomorrow

[RichUK]

They’re saying 30k more US troops. The sooner the yankee doodle dandys hit the ground the better.

They need to hurry up and help the British troops out. :awe:

 

[Lemon law]

While its clear that Obama will announce his new Afghan strategy tomorrow and add extra troops, that, IMHO, is not what matters. Because its clear the purely military strategy previously used had failed, so I m looking to see how Obama plans to change the overall approach in winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan people.

Given the overall Katrina treatment we have given Afghanistan, its not hard to see why the Taliban is winning almost by default.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Given the overall Katrina treatment we have given Afghanistan, its not hard to see why the Taliban is winning almost by default.

Agree...the last year or two hasn't been pretty.

 

[Lemon law]

I agree with DocSavageFan in saying "Agree...the last year or two hasn't been pretty."

But, in the grand scheme of things, there is nothing to point at in the Nato Afghan strategy that has been pretty since day one when we hit the ground bungling.

Its only in the last two years that the Taliban has really been able to hit a critical mass in its resurgence, but the trend lines can be traced back to 2001.

My other opinion is that if Pakistan had not, for reasons of its own, really started cracking down on the Taliban in the tribal regions of Pakistan, the 2009 fighting season would have resulted in far more Nato causalities than we actually saw.

Given that winter will result in a lull in the fighting, Obama does not have much time before the fighting season opens up again come spring 2010.

 

[dwell]

Pull them out of Afghanistan and carpet bomb the Pakistan mountains or bring them all home. Afghanistan is and has always been a shit hole. No use sacrificing good men to try and police a country that will never accept the West.

 

[Zebo]

Kill em all and let their God sort them out or bring them home. Anything else is a waste of money, men and materials.

But that maybe the idea.

 

[dwell]

Michael Moore on this topic:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2...-Letter-to-President-Obama-from-Michael-Moore

With just one speech tomorrow night you will turn a multitude of young people who were the backbone of your campaign into disillusioned cynics. You will teach them what they've always heard is true -- that all politicians are alike. I simply can't believe you're about to do what they say you are going to do. Please say it isn't so.

If the young people didn't figure out that Obama is just like every other full of shit politician by now, they're dumber than I gave them credit for.

 

[palehorse]

Michael Moore on this topic:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2...-Letter-to-President-Obama-from-Michael-Moore

If the young people didn't figure out that Obama is just like every other full of shit politician by now, they're dumber than I gave them credit for.

1. Michael Moore is a fucking buffoon.
2. Obama stated during his campaign that he supports the war in Afganistan and that he's committed to seeing us succeed there. If any voter turns against him out of some misguided idea that he has lied about this, then they need to go back and watch nearly every debate and speech he made on this subject during his campaign. If he follows through with the troop increases, then he's only doing exactly what he promised he'd do. In fact, his hawkishness on Afghanistan is one of the main reasons I voted for him.

Now, that said, he has lied before, and he'll probably lie again; I don't think he's that much different than any other politician; and, at the end of the day, I probably won't ever vote for him again.

On this issue though, he's doing exactly what he said he'd do all along. If doing so surprises any of his voters, then they're fucking retarded.

 

[Brainonska511]

I think we need to take a step back and look at why we went into Afghanistan. We went in to get bin laden. Do we really need 30,000 more troops in there to accomplish this goal? Do we want to get bogged down in a large occupation of a nothing country? The Russians tried it back in the '80s and we all remember how that went. Can we accomplish our goal of getting bin laden and protecting our few interests in that region with fewer troops?

 

[Xellos2099]

I remember watching Jay Leno show a few years back and he was making a joke about rebuilding Afghanistan, which is largely..... mountain and rock. So you move a rock there and destroy that mountain there to rebuild as a joke.

To be honest, we invaded Afghanistan because they attack us first. I can't think of the possibility of real peace there until every man, woman and child that is related to the terrorist is dead, but that would be like what Nazis did back in World War II. Until a new generation of people who doesn't hate the western culture (It will also help if they don't have the tendency of blowing themselves up because their religion leader say so) is born, there won't be peace in middle east.

Getting bin laden won't end the battle, we kill the head of a terrorist group, another one will take its place.

 

[Brainonska511]

I remember watching Jay Leno show a few years back and he was making a joke about rebuilding Afghanistan, which is largely..... mountain and rock. So you move a rock there and destroy that mountain there to rebuild as a joke.

To be honest, we invaded Afghanistan because they attack us first. I can't think of the possibility of real peace there until every man, woman and child that is related to the terrorist is dead, but that would be like what Nazis did back in World War II. Until a new generation of people who doesn't hate the western culture (It will also help if they don't have the tendency of blowing themselves up because their religion leader say so) is born, there won't be peace in middle east.

Getting bin laden won't end the battle, we kill the head of a terrorist group, another one will take its place.

Afghanistan didn't attack us. Al Qaeda did. The Taliban just happened to be giving them shelter within their country. We shouldn't lose sight of the goal, which was to root out Al Qaeda training camps, upper-echelon members, and of course, Bin Laden.

 

[Xellos2099]

Yes my mistake. But in a sense, Al Qaeda and Bin Laden was being protected by Taliban. Taliban which also happen to be the ruling power in Afghanistan and connect the dot. Yes I agree that we should be destroying Al Qaeda training camps, but in my opinion, there wouldn't be peace till every member of Al Qaeda are dead which is impossible to do unless we nuke the hell out of the country since Al Qaeda blend with local civilian, so we can't resort to that. I must admit, it would be pretty damn effective and cheap compare to using footsoldier...

 

[kylebisme]

I think we need to take a step back and look at why we went into Afghanistan. We went in to get bin laden. Do we really need 30,000 more troops in there to accomplish this goal?

We went in there to justify continuing to stuff the pockets of our military-industrial complex and secure mineral rights and paths for gas pipelines in the region, and another 30,000 more troops will help in continuing to fulfill those goals. That said, the people who support this madness should be committed, into mental institutions, Obama included.

 

[palehorse]

Our goal there now is to prevent fundamentalism from taking over the entire region and setting up terrorist assembly lines that will plague the West for decades to come, or longer. My guess is that our mission there is a 20-50 year proposition, or longer. My other guess is that Americans no longer have the patience, will, or tenacity to weather such a daunting endeavor.

The alternative is total withdrawal. Then, we cross our fingers and wish on stars while we wait for the inevitable next attacks on the West to come, and for the government of Pakistan to collapse like a domino...

It's a bigtime catch-22, so now what?

 

[theflyingpig]

The alternative is total withdrawal. Then, we cross our fingers and wish on stars while we wait for the inevitable next attacks on the West to come, and for the government of Pakistan to collapse like a domino...

Withdraw and let Pakistan fall. This will give India a reason to go in and slaughter them all. We can support them in their efforts. This is the best course of action as it removes our troops from the area, and shows the world that radical Islam must be destroyed. Everyone knows this.

 

[Lemon law]

I think its time to make a number of points about the recent history of Afghanistan starting from the Russian occupation.

1. Its somewhat absurd to think it was the fact that Afghanistan is ungovernable. We have to face the facts, it was not per say the mugahaden that chased the Russians out, it was the Reagan era decision to train them in guerrilla tactics and arm them with stinger missiles that made the Afghan occupation untenable for the Russians.

2. After the Russians left and the USA abandoned Afghanistan, the Afghan reality became civil war, anarchy, and massive corruption fueled by drug money made off the opium cultivation.

3. The rise of the Taliban can be traced to the Taliban as reformist movement who chased out the corrupt and the Taliban received popular support, not because anyone liked their brutal tactics, but because they were better than the corrupt war and drug lords that they replaced. Beyond that, the Taliban doctrine is driven by a bunch of reactionary nuts bent on returning Afghanistan to a mid evil past that frankly doomed any hopes of Afghan progress in technology. But from the US viewpoint, it was better
than Russian domination. And from a Pakistani viewpoint it opened up trade routes to the North and West. But still, as a home grown movement, the Taliban had no expansionist agenda, and limited its scope to Afghanistan.

4. Then Ossama Bin Laden used Afghanistan to launch 911 without the knowledge or consent of the Taliban. And GWB, eager to add war time President to his resume, soon embarked on a mission on the cheap to get both Al-Quida and the Taliban. Unwilling to commit the US troops needed, the first thing GWB&co did was to ally with the losing side in the Afghan civil war, namely the Northern alliance. The very corrupt rascals that the Taliban received popular support for chasing out of power.

5. Which brings us to the start of this thread, and how willing the Northern alliance was to capture Bin Laden.

6. After that, Nato has given the Afghan people the Katrina treatment for eight long years. As Afghanistan is plunged into what amounts to a eight year civil war with the Afghan people caught in a free fire zone. Their government does not work, the police and military is corrupt, their courts function only by bribes, if they support Nato the Taliban will kill them, Nato will kill them if they even think they can get any Taliban, and the drug lords will kill them if they get in the way of their agenda. And even better than that if you are Satin himself, the Taliban is too strong to be dislodged, Nato is too strong to be dislodged, so this conflict will be living hell for the Afghan people for maybe forever. And drug money helps keep it funded.

7. The Afghan people would like to join the Modern world and at first greeted Nato as liberators. But without more troops than Obama is willing to commit, and without the massive foreign aid GWB was un willing to give, there is no military way to beat the Taliban. The only way, IMHO, is to show the Afgan people that the reactionary doctrine of the Taliban is false. We may have to start small and build outward, eliminating corruption and protecting those under our control, because we do not have the troops and resources to do the entire country. As for Pakistan, with the exception of the tribal areas, most Pakistanis are fully benefiting from modernity and the Taliban can make no real progress there.

 

[Zebo]

Withdraw and let Pakistan fall. This will give India a reason to go in and slaughter them all. We can support them in their efforts. This is the best course of action as it removes our troops from the area, and shows the world that radical Islam must be destroyed. Everyone knows this.

What's unradical Islam? Just forty lashes for being raped instead of buried waist down and stoned. Think about it. Islam is radical to western sensibilities.

 

[kylebisme]

The alternative is total withdrawal. Then, we cross our fingers and wish on stars while we wait for the inevitable next attacks on the West to come...

This is a ridiculous false dichotomy. Total withdraw doesn't necessitate setting on our hands, as we can always drop back by to bomb to piss whatever terrorist training camps might spring whenever we like.

 

[Zebo]

Our goal there now is to prevent fundamentalism from taking over the entire region and setting up terrorist assembly lines that will plague the West for decades to come, or longer. My guess is that our mission there is a 20-50 year proposition, or longer. My other guess is that Americans no longer have the patience, will, or tenacity to weather such a daunting endeavor.

The alternative is total withdrawal. Then, we cross our fingers and wish on stars while we wait for the inevitable next attacks on the West to come, and for the government of Pakistan to collapse like a domino...

It's a bigtime catch-22, so now what?

Can't stop the inevitable. The west and far east is like Chamberlin in 1937. The ummah is like Germany 1937. The ummah's power and weaponry will continue to grow. The rest of the world will continue to not name the enemy of the free world, instead focusing on this or that group but saying as a whole they are cool despite financial and and moral support from the entire ummah. One day the West/china/far east will be really in mortal danger and will have a war that will make WWII look like a boy scout jamboree.

Hope I'm gone but y0ou can't compromise with fanaticism - there is none.

PS: In the meantime watch out for sudden jihad syndrome in your ranks. The PC MC generals arnt.

 

[palehorse]

4. Then Ossama Bin Laden used Afghanistan to launch 911 without the knowledge or consent of the Taliban.

my old friend is at it again... disregarding the rest of your usual diatribe, for a moment, do you have anything at all to back up the statement I quoted above?

 

[palehorse]

This is a ridiculous false dichotomy. Total withdraw doesn't necessitate setting on our hands, as we can always drop back by to bomb to piss whatever terrorist training camps might spring whenever we like.

until we hit the first "wedding," that is... also, without troops on the ground, and support elements to sustain said troops, how exactly do you propose we collect and refine the intelligence necessary to conduct such air-strikes? Are we to rely entirely on satellites and/or some sort of "training camp hotline" run from offshore?

SpecOps could of course remain in place, and even be increased in number (within limits), but they'll certainly have a hard time watching and subsequently hitting targets throughout the entire region... indefinitely.

Maybe Obama will wise up and announce a severe increase in the size of our SOF tomorrow, but I highly doubt it...

 

[kylebisme]

my old friend is at it again... disregarding the rest of your usual diatribe, for a moment, do you have anything at all to back up the statement I quoted above?

I'm sure he doesn't even have anything solid to back up the claim that bin Laden was behind 9/11, since our Justice Department apparently doesn't either, as they have yet to indict him for the attacks.

until we hit the first "wedding," that is...

If that were true, we would have been out a long time ago.

..also, without troops on the ground, and support elements to sustain said troops, how exactly do you propose we collect and refine the intelligence necessary to conduct such air-strikes?

The same ways we do in regard to every other part of the world we aren't holding under military occupation, including the means you mention.

 

[Zebo]

until we hit the first "wedding," that is... also, without troops

Maybe Obama will wise up and announce a severe increase in the size of our SOF tomorrow, but I highly doubt it...

Like you can just make those soldiers overnight. 2-3 years minimum and I'm sure you'll have plenty signing up for indefinite warfare under a CIC who busts them for slapping a terrorist.

Put a fork in it it's over.

 

[tvarad]

The more important message in the tea leaves is what the strategy for Pakistan is going to be. The Taliban are the village idiots being manipulated by the Pakistani weasels (with nukes, I might add). Unless the Pakistani generals who have been playing the Americans like a fiddle for the last couple of years are tamed, there can be no long lasting solution to the imbroglio.

 

[FaaR]

One day the West/china/far east will be really in mortal danger and will have a war that will make WWII look like a boy scout jamboree.

Thanks for your concern, but it's exactly THAT kind of xenophobic, racist keyboard diarrhea that will help to bring your scenario about. IE, if we in the west continue to treat the islamic world like crap and like they're crazed fanatics then we are planting the seeds of their uprising against us ourselves. And I can't say I blame them either, the west has been pissing on that part of the world for hundreds of years now.

You getting any of this, my thickheaded friend?