Last roll of the dice: 34k extra troops for Afghanistan
- Thread starter RedRalph
- Start date
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
I think your title is how they came to that conclusion.
MeteorPunch
#WINNING
So I guess pretty soon we're gonna pull Osama Bin Laden out of where ever we've been keeping him so we credit Obama with the save and Bush with the win. Otherwise this is just pathetic.
"Let's kill more people and waste more money YEAH!"
"Let's kill more people and waste more money YEAH!"
Shekwan
Kim Chi Quaffing Celt
I think most people are going to hold opinions until they hear the strategy announcement. 34,000 troops are going is all that seems to be known right now.
I would say its a good sign though, it sends a strong signal that they're not going to take a piecemeal aproach to it by going for one of the lower troop number options.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Good, our fine Canadian soldiers could use some help.
Ayatollah So
the spoof'll set you free
Obama wants to "finish the job" in Afghanistan. What job? Decimating Al Qaeda? Already done. The US National Security Council estimates there are only about 100 Al Qaeda operating in Afghanistan. More are in Pakistan. But nobody in their right mind advocates an invasion of Pakistan.
Establishing Western-style democracy in Afghanistan? Not gonna happen, and more importantly, not our job. Afghan leadership and/or masses of the people have to decide to take on that job, and so far they show no real inclination. (Lip service =/= reality.)
American leadership has no clear vision of its goals in a conflict, nor any coherent realistic plan for achieving its vague idea of a goal. A recurring theme.
Establishing Western-style democracy in Afghanistan? Not gonna happen, and more importantly, not our job. Afghan leadership and/or masses of the people have to decide to take on that job, and so far they show no real inclination. (Lip service =/= reality.)
American leadership has no clear vision of its goals in a conflict, nor any coherent realistic plan for achieving its vague idea of a goal. A recurring theme.
Shekwan
Kim Chi Quaffing Celt
I would agree that liberal democracy will never be established in Afghanistan. However they haven't finished the job until they've established some sort regime that can crack down on Islamic terror groups without foreign help. NATO has to say that liberal democracy is their goal but in reality any stable liberal pro-western autocracy would do too. Just because theres only 100 AQ operatives in Afghanistan now doesn't mean they can't just set up shop there again if NATO were to just cut loose and give up.
Gustave5436
Emperor
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2008
- Messages
- 1,319
I thought we wanted to dismantle the Taliban?
It would help if the US would not undermine their attempts at democracy by supporting whoever that guy is who won the recent election by massive electoral fraud.
RedRalph
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 20,708
How long would you expect that to take?
If the Taliban isn't fighting, I can't really see why they shouldn't be part of the government. Not that I like the idea.
Wonder how this impacts Obama politically. The Senate ads I've seen out of Boston have a candidate campaigning against an Afghan surge.
Shekwan
Kim Chi Quaffing Celt
I'm not sure if its even possible, but at least its not impossible. All I'm saying is that must be the realistic objective, establishing a liberal democracy is just a pipe dream and I'm pretty sure none of the real power brokers actually believe that is possible. They'd be happy with some superficially liberal autocracy that is not sympathetic to Islamic terror groups. And rightly so.
You're right in calling it the last roll of the dice, if this doesn't produce results within a year or so I can't see there being any public support at all left.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
He kept that campaign promise long ago.
The Europeans and others are supposed to ante up another 10K.
JohnRM
Don't make me destroy you
Afghanistan must not return to a theocratic regime hostile to the United States. It would only embolden our enemies and precipitate more terrorist attacks on our country and interests abroad.
Unfortunately, media cameras and public opinion are against tougher tactics.
Unfortunately, media cameras and public opinion are against tougher tactics.
What are you talking about? This is just another example of Obama not having the balls to take the war to the enemy.
...
But seriously, yes the NATO supplement is what I am led to believe "Defence Secretary Robert Gates" wanted. Nevertheless it still goes against the wishes of "Gen Stanley McChrystal" who apparently wanted 40,000 American troops. Same difference to me, but I was alluding to the probable way this news will be handled by the press. Sending less than 40,000 will be seen by some as a sensible compromise solution, by others as practically revolutionary defeatism.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
About time. But I think the choice had more to do with this:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-11-24-Poll_N.htm
His numbers have flipped because of the perception he isnt doing anything in Afghanistan. Him taking so long to approve this certainly didnt help.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-11-24-Poll_N.htm
His numbers have flipped because of the perception he isnt doing anything in Afghanistan. Him taking so long to approve this certainly didnt help.
Richard Cribb
He does monologues
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2003
- Messages
- 4,291
I suppose he is going for the Nobel Peace Prize for 2010.
With extra spams on the ground, hopefully a few of them will be going spare to give us brits a hand where we need it (aside from giving us kit - but they are very good for that. The first time we deployed together to that part of the world (nearly twenty years ago now, Christ!) I managed to get a ticket out, and my squadron were in a base with a large contingent of americans, and we must have traded at least enough rations to feed all of us for their stuff, especially the stuff the children send them - deoderant galore!)
Similar threads
