No more troops for Afghanistan

[CallMeJoe]

For those who still deny that the invasion in Iraq has kept the U.S. from finishing the job in Afghanistan:

"This government is going to work to provide additional forces for Afghanistan next year. How many, whether it's the three additional brigades that the commanders want, I think is a question, frankly, for the next administration," Morrell said at a news conference.
There won't be enough troops to send to Afghanistan any time soon because of commitments in Iraq, which is the priority for the Pentagon. "The chairman of the Joint Chiefs has said time and time again Iraq is a mission we must do. Afghanistan is a mission we do as we can," Morrell said.
The chairman, Adm. Michael Mullen, has agreed there are not enough troops in Afghanistan, but said the military is constrained by commitments in Iraq. "We've got our troops committed right now, either preparing there or coming back," Mullen said on PBS's "NewsHour with Jim Lehrer" on Tuesday. "And until we get to a point where we reduce that commitment, we won't have significant additional troops to add to Afghanistan."

(story at CNN.com)
We have failed to finish the necessary job in Afghanistan (where alQaeda was, where the attacks of Sept 11th originated, where the Taliban supported international terrorism and will again if they regain control) because the Bush administration chose an optional war in Iraq, where they thought we might have problems in the future. W and Company have really screwed the pooch in their "war on terror"; can their successors redeem their errors?

Would President McCain or President Obama be more likely to take on the Taliban? McCain is invested in his Iraqi "Surge", and Obama is intent on bringing the troops home...

 

[Lemon law]

Iraq with a population of 25 million basically requires 500,000 troops to do an occupation. We have 160,000 or so and are failing.

Afghanistan with a population of 31 million basically requires 600,000 troops to do a successful occupation. We have 62,000
troops, most are Nato troops, and they are failing really badly.

The myth becomes, 7,000 extra will make much difference.

But the joints chiefs reasons are clear, Iraq has oil and Afghanistan does not. And Iraq has a strategic location and Afghanistan does not.

Lesson for the American people, bad decisions made by Republican Presidents have reliable and annoying habits of coming back to bite the American people on the butt when we lose sight of what is also good for the people of a region.

 

[brencat]

Afghanistan is a mountainous country unlike Iraq. Putting sizable amounts of troops untrained for that terrain in harms way is exactly what Russia did...and got its ass kicked.

I don't see many people complaining about all the Euro-pussies with all their little "can't fight in the South" excuses and exclusions. It's always the U.S.'s fault there's not enough special forces troops for Afghanistan b/c we're bogged down in Iraq. Meanwhile, the U.S. and Britain have been doing the lion's share of the work and fighting for years over there.

You can argue about the merits of being involved in Iraq. But don't simply say it's the U.S.'s fault that Afghanistan has problems. It's about time Europe -- which has a vested interest in securing Afghanistan too -- gets off its ass and out of the chicken costume and into the fight. With guns too.

 

[GenHoth]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Lesson for the American people, bad decisions made by ANY Presidents have reliable and annoying habits of coming back to bite the American people on the butt All the time.

Hey, that's why they're bad decisions right?

 

[Jhhnn]

Originally posted by: brencat
Afghanistan is a mountainous country unlike Iraq. Putting sizable amounts of troops untrained for that terrain in harms way is exactly what Russia did...and got its ass kicked.

I don't see many people complaining about all the Euro-pussies with all their little "can't fight in the South" excuses and exclusions. It's always the U.S.'s fault there's not enough special forces troops for Afghanistan b/c we're bogged down in Iraq. Meanwhile, the U.S. and Britain have been doing the lion's share of the work and fighting for years over there.

You can argue about the merits of being involved in Iraq. But don't simply say it's the U.S.'s fault that Afghanistan has problems. It's about time Europe -- which has a vested interest in securing Afghanistan too -- gets off its ass and out of the chicken costume and into the fight. With guns too.

The Soviets got into trouble because the US, Pakistanis, Saudis and others channelled huge quantities of advanced arms, support, and training to the mujahedin. That's not the situation today, at all.

There are currently over 50K troops deployed in Afghanistan, of which only 18K are US troops-

http://www.nato.int/issues/isaf/index.html

It's not like our allies are twiddling their thumbs...

Or that the real prize the Bushistas want is Iraq...

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: brencat
Afghanistan is a mountainous country unlike Iraq. Putting sizable amounts of troops untrained for that terrain in harms way is exactly what Russia did...and got its ass kicked.

I don't see many people complaining about all the Euro-pussies with all their little "can't fight in the South" excuses and exclusions. It's always the U.S.'s fault there's not enough special forces troops for Afghanistan b/c we're bogged down in Iraq. Meanwhile, the U.S. and Britain have been doing the lion's share of the work and fighting for years over there.

You can argue about the merits of being involved in Iraq. But don't simply say it's the U.S.'s fault that Afghanistan has problems. It's about time Europe -- which has a vested interest in securing Afghanistan too -- gets off its ass and out of the chicken costume and into the fight. With guns too.

Afghanistan is our war, not the Europeans. It should've been taken care of as if it meant something to those that died on 9/11.

 

[Nebor]

There's never been a strong central government in Afghanistan. It's a difficult situation. Drugs and violence are big problems, and life is cheap.

I agree with Lemon Law that more troops need to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. A bill should be drafted committing US forces to Iraq and Afghanist for a period of 10 years, with a limited 10 year draft instituted to supply the troops necessary to finish the job in both nations.

 

[KGB]

Originally posted by: Nebor
There's never been a strong central government in Afghanistan. It's a difficult situation. Drugs and violence are big problems, and life is cheap.

I agree with Lemon Law that more troops need to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. A bill should be drafted committing US forces to Iraq and Afghanist for a period of 10 years, with a limited 10 year draft instituted to supply the troops necessary to finish the job in both nations.

There's that "D" word. Politically, that's the equivalent of the "third rail".
While I agree that this country needs a draft, the ten year commitment is ridiculous.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Iraq has oil and lots of no-bid money for halliburon. Bush and Cheney know what they are doing (helping their buddies out)

 

[lupi]

The first problem was that clinton cut too many combat divisions. The second problem was that bush tried to do too much with guard troops. The third problem is that bush waiting too long before starting to reform some inactivated units. The fouth problem is that after 50 years of being the blunt object supporting nato a majority of those nations have demostrated and exceedingly high degree of pussy when it was their turn to head to the front og the line.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: KGBMAN

Originally posted by: Nebor
There's never been a strong central government in Afghanistan. It's a difficult situation. Drugs and violence are big problems, and life is cheap.

I agree with Lemon Law that more troops need to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. A bill should be drafted committing US forces to Iraq and Afghanist for a period of 10 years, with a limited 10 year draft instituted to supply the troops necessary to finish the job in both nations.

There's that "D" word. Politically, that's the equivalent of the "third rail".
While I agree that this country needs a draft, the ten year commitment is ridiculous.

The draft is pointless without the commitment. The commitment is pointless without the draft.