Obama to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan

Chunkee

Lifer
Jul 28, 2002
10,391
1
81
I am not real certain how I feel about this...It almost seems that it dilutes our forces strategy wise. The cost for this has been proposed to have a tax over those that make 30,000 a year. Sorry I do not have a link for that, I heard it with interview with WH Press Secretary this am, but that may be moot.

This is going to be long and drawn out. I really feel badly and am not real sure that we need to be there.

Not sure if day to day coverage of death and destruction of young soldiers is the shot in the arm that we need for morale and hope here.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/01/obama.afghanistan/
 
Last edited:

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
I've kinda been dwelling on this quote ever since I read it in an anti-war Op-Ed this morning...

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
I'm not sure how I feel about it either. What is our specific goal there? What are the chances of achieving that goal? How many lives will be lost? How much is it going to cost in $$$? What will happen if we pull out instead of increase forces?
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
This serves no useful purpose. The time to act was years ago, and the Taliban is so entrenched that 300,000 troops would be needed, and once we left they'd be right back in.

And WTF is with stating a time when we're going to pull out? That's like the police telling the burglars when they aren't going out on patrol.
 

Modelworks

Lifer
Feb 22, 2007
16,240
7
76
To me it makes the US military ability look weak to terrorist.

If they want to end the war, send everything we got at the country and show them that when it comes to what this country believes in you don't mess with the USA. Instead we send the message of we will kick around some sand for 18 months then we are out of there.

No wonder my nephew who came home Thanksgiving day said that morale was poor.
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
1) Wait months and don't listen to your hand picked general while troops die.

2) Finally make a decision to half ass it and send well below the requested number of troops (by your hand picked general) ensuring the mission will fail.

3) Blame BOOOSH
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
What we really need is a Obama press conference thread.

But as someone who wants to support Obama , I sadly find the strategy he advocated
both clueless and missing in action.

Its hard to believe that Obama has learned nothing, nothing at all, about why the GWB strategy failed in Afghanistan.

Obama said nothing about stopping Afghan government corruption that is jonb one required.

Obama said nothing about economic aid for Afghanistan that is the key to showing the Taliban offers nothing to the Afghan people.

And if Obama can't offer anything to the Afgan people and only wants to win for the USA, why should the Afghan people want endless violence for for them and something that is good for only us?
 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
16,469
4,536
136
1) Wait months and don't listen to your hand picked general while troops die.

2) Finally make a decision to half ass it and send well below the requested number of troops (by your hand picked general) ensuring the mission will fail.

3) Blame BOOOSH


The U.S. has about 50,000 deployable troops at present.

So you'd send them all in, leaving none in reserve?

If you had a clue, you'd realize that we are over-extended. Why?


Booosh!
 
Last edited:

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
The U.S. has about 50,000 deployable troops at present.

So you'd send them all in, leaving none in reserve?

If you had a clue, you'd realize that we are over-extended. Why?


Booosh!

Incorrect. There are well over 75,000 deployable troops at present.

So if your hand picked general requests 60,000 troops with a MINIMUM of 40,000 and you send 30,000 you are setting the mission up for failure.
 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
16,469
4,536
136
Incorrect. There are well over 75,000 deployable troops at present.

So if your hand picked general requests 60,000 troops with a MINIMUM of 40,000 and you send 30,000 you are setting the mission up for failure.


Never heard any number as high as 75,000. Perhaps you are thinking of the domestic redeployment potential from foreign bases? That's not the same as the number deployable to Afghanistan at present.

Furthermore, the purpose of the additional troops is to protect a "realignment" of forces in Afghanistan already underway, not for any great offensive "mission" per se, and this number is deemed sufficient for this purpose by many experts hand picked or otherwise..
 
Last edited:

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
To me it makes the US military ability look weak to terrorist.

If they want to end the war, send everything we got at the country and show them that when it comes to what this country believes in you don't mess with the USA. Instead we send the message of we will kick around some sand for 18 months then we are out of there.

No wonder my nephew who came home Thanksgiving day said that morale was poor.

this.

It's just too damn bad that America, as a whole, lost the will and tenacity to win wars several decades ago... This "surge" in Afghanistan will amount to jack and shit. :(

Obama didn't mention one damn thing about a multi-pronged approach that will address every aspect of the problems we face in Afghanistan -- NOT ONE THING!

bah...
 
Last edited:

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
16,469
4,536
136
this.

It's just too damn bad that America, as a whole, lost the will and tenacity to win wars several decades ago... This "surge" in Afghanistan will amount to jack and shit. :(


News flash: We won the first gulf war quite decisively, thank you. The current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are yet to be decided.

You sure lack faith in the United States...sad.

Also I don't know what speech you were listening to, but laying out a multi-pronged strategy is EXACTLY what the Commander in Chief did tonight.

Perhaps you were out having a tinkle?
 
Last edited:

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
69,014
26,891
136
Lyndon Johnson told the nation
Have no fear of escalation...

Has a flame ever burned so bright in so short of a time for no particular gain? Obama never had the right, he barely holds the middle, and he threw away the left. And to make it really suck, he's burned all his influence and "political capital" accomplishing nothing. At least Johnson got most of his Great Society and Civil Rights agenda through before flaming out.
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
2
0
this.

It's just too damn bad that America, as a whole, lost the will and tenacity to win wars several decades ago... This "surge" in Afghanistan will amount to jack and shit. :(

Obama didn't mention one damn thing about a multi-pronged approach that will address every aspect of the problems we face in Afghanistan -- NOT ONE THING!

bah...

Make a war worth fighting and you'll get willpower. Continue to create occupations of other countries for no purpose and expect more of this.
 

Skitzer

Diamond Member
Mar 20, 2000
4,415
3
81
I thought the speech was a good one with the exception of troop commitment in numbers and the fact that a withdrawal date was given.
I believe that the American people do not have the heart for this increase in troops to Afghanistan. I don't believe we are responding with enough force. Due to the County's reluctance and lack of will to see this through, this surge will not work regardless of how many are sent. I am not a quitter by any means, however, if we're not going to do it right we need to get the hell out ....... yesterday!
 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
16,469
4,536
136
Lyndon Johnson told the nation
Have no fear of escalation...

Has a flame ever burned so bright in so short of a time for no particular gain? Obama never had the right, he barely holds the middle, and he threw away the left. And to make it really suck, he's burned all his influence and "political capital" accomplishing nothing. At least Johnson got most of his Great Society and Civil Rights agenda through before flaming out.


Have a shot of patience with a chaser of political reality.

Kennedy is the one who got the civil rights act in the works...Johnson was handed the baton, but the overall process took many years of hard work.

And LBJ never could crack the Vietnam war.

Obama is handed a perfect shit-storm of a Galaxy-wide economic calamity and TWO stinky wars, and since he didn't use his magic wand and solve all of the world's problems in less than a year, you give up all hope?

Jesus wept.
 
Last edited:

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
If we have 75,000 deployable troops,then how did we get 300,000 troops in Iraq for the invasion?

Why not just organize a higher troop count? People need jobs. That takes a lot of supply and support.

I dont think not having enough troops is a fallacy. We have plenty of troops in Europe right now. Pull all the troops out of Germany and Korea.

30,000 is the surge that we moved into Iraq.
 
Last edited:

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
Never heard any number as high as 75,000. Perhaps you are thinking of the domestic redeployment potential from foreign bases? That's not the same as the number deployable to Afghanistan at present.

Furthermore, the purpose of the additional troops is to protect a "realignment" of forces in Afghanistan already underway, not for any great offensive "mission" per se, and this number is deemed sufficient for this purpose by many experts hand picked or otherwise..

The Washington Post (bless their strategy disclosing little hearts) printed a DOD redacted copy of McChrystal's original COMISAF Initial Assessment (Unclassified) on September 21, 2009.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/21/AR2009092100110.html?hpid=topnews

They had their hands on the classified version that had the detail as to actual numbers of troops required for the proposed mission, but chose not to publish that once the DOD offered the redacted version.

Other sources quoted the projected force numbers McChrystal required for the proposed mission but also did not publish the classified document.

Gen. McChrystal Wants Up to 80,000 More Troops

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/55442

The 10,000 more troops required number was originally made by McChrystal's predecessor, Gen. David D. McKiernan.
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
Make a war worth fighting and you'll get willpower. Continue to create occupations of other countries for no purpose and expect more of this.

The world left Afghanistan to the Muslims to govern after the Soviet Union left and that gave us the Taliban which harbored Al Qaeda, trained terrorists, and resulted in 9/11.
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,948
131
106
so how many times did your obama mention victory in his speach??
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
1) Wait months and don't listen to your hand picked general while troops die.

2) Finally make a decision to half ass it and send well below the requested number of troops (by your hand picked general) ensuring the mission will fail.

3) Blame BOOOSH

Blame Bush is the first step as well as the last.

Honestly though, who screwed things up doesn't really matter, since we elected Obama to fix it. If Obama's plan works, he'll get all the credit, and if the plan doesn't work, no one will care that someone else screwed things up, only that Obama didn't make it better. Sure, he may have inherited the problem, but if he didn't want to deal with it then he shouldn't have run in the first place.
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
Blame Bush is the first step as well as the last.

Honestly though, who screwed things up doesn't really matter, since we elected Obama to fix it. If Obama's plan works, he'll get all the credit, and if the plan doesn't work, no one will care that someone else screwed things up, only that Obama didn't make it better. Sure, he may have inherited the problem, but if he didn't want to deal with it then he shouldn't have run in the first place.

Bush inherited the problem of Afghanistan from Clinton not to mention that a country was ready to hand over Bin-Ladin but Clinton was too busy getting a blowjob.

Round and round the blame game goes, where it stops no body knows.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
If we have 75,000 deployable troops,then how did we get 300,000 troops in Iraq for the invasion?

Why not just organize a higher troop count? People need jobs. That takes a lot of supply and support.

I dont think not having enough troops is a fallacy. We have plenty of troops in Europe right now. Pull all the troops out of Germany and Korea.

30,000 is the surge that we moved into Iraq.

Understand that there are all kinds of troops required in conducting a war as Obama is proposing to fight. 30,000, 40,000, 100,000 - the number are meaningless without a comprehension of who does what.

The Special Forces and Civil Affairs units that are most effective in this kind of conflict are not numerous. 80%+ of all available forces of this type are already deployed or rotating through Iraq and Afghanistan. That leaves very, very few to be deployed to other hot spots, ie Central and South America, Africa, Asia, etc.

It takes 2-3 years to build up the skill set of a SF trooper to where they are unit effective. And Obama plans to have us out in 18 months or so?

CA units are almost all US Army Reserve and are usually employed as high level command coordinators at battalion/brigade/division (S5/G5 staff) not field operators. You will have to start with people who have 10+ years of applicable civilian experience, add a year or two of CA branch specific training and then train them up for special operations in isolated areas. You can't ramp them up any faster than SF.

Of course, leaving Iraq on an expedited schedule will allow for re-deployments to some extent. But many of those in Iraq have been there for quite a while, are heavily involved with the transition in Iraq and at the end are due for rotation out of the whole AO. Adding another 18 months in the field isn't gong to happen, at least for another year.

Line troops are OK for security missions, particularly in the cities, and patrolling operations for a show of force. You will see a variety of low level fights, significant casualties on both sides, and a lot of mistakes.

I am most concerned at the "training" of indigenous forces that is being forecast. The Afghan Army and police forces will have to pull from a population that does not speak English, is overwhelmingly illiterate and of mixed loyalties. I seriously doubt they can hit the projected goals in three years, much less 18 months.
 
Last edited:

Sacrilege

Senior member
Sep 6, 2007
647
0
0
To me it makes the US military ability look weak to terrorist.

If they want to end the war, send everything we got at the country and show them that when it comes to what this country believes in you don't mess with the USA. Instead we send the message of we will kick around some sand for 18 months then we are out of there.

No wonder my nephew who came home Thanksgiving day said that morale was poor.

This is what I've been saying for months and the left and right in this forum say it is too tough.

If we raze Afghanistan to the ground, we won't have to worry about Al Qaeda, the Tally-ban, Pakistan nukes, Opium, or rebuilding that God-forsaken shit hole.

"Afghanistan - graveyard of empires"

Should be turned into: "Afghanistan - graveyard of all Afghans"