Pentagon Delays Troop Request for Afghan War

Should the US send more troops to Afghanistan?

  • Yes. The US should not let Afghanistan fall to the Taliban.

    Votes: 16 59.3%
  • Yes. If NATO members provide more troops also.

    Votes: 1 3.7%
  • No. It's time to pull out of Afghanistan.

    Votes: 8 29.6%
  • Undecided.

    Votes: 2 7.4%

  • Total voters
    27

Aleenik

Deity
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
2,203
Location
France
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/21/pentagon-delays-troop-request-afghan-war/

I support the war in Afghanistan. I think we should send more troops to Afghanistan. I don't think we should let it fall to the Taliban.

Request for additional forces on hold as White House seeks review of Afghan strategy against resurgent Taliban

WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon has told its top commander in Afghanistan to delay submitting his request for additional troops, defense officials say, amid signs that the Obama administration is rethinking its strategy for combating a resurgent Taliban.

A senior Pentagon official says the administration has asked for the reprieve so it can complete a review of the U.S.-led war effort. "We have to make sure we have the right strategy" before looking at additional troop requests, the official said. "Things have changed on the ground fairly considerably."

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, recently completed a classified report asking for significant numbers of new American troops. Military officials familiar with the matter says the report lays out several options, including one that seeks roughly 40,000 reinforcements, which would push the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan to more than 100,000 for the first time.

But the commander has been told to delay submitting the troop request to the Pentagon at the direction of Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and other top civilian officials, according to defense officials.

The administration's call for a further strategic review -- which official said could take weeks -- comes as military commanders in the field say the campaign is running out of time and U.S. congressional and public support for the war is flagging.

In a new assessment of the war submitted to the Pentagon last month and made public Monday, Gen. McChrystal wrote that if the Taliban insurgency's momentum isn't reversed in the next 12 months, defeating it may no longer be possible. "Time matters; we must act now to reverse the negative trends and demonstrate progress," Gen. McChrystal wrote in a "Commander's Summary" at the start of the assessment.
 
Well, it would be bit of a waste to give up know, wouldn't it? There would seem to be no choice but to continue, and to do so successfully requires more troops. But I don't see why these shouldn't come solely from America. If things go completely to ruin, then they are, after all, the ones that will face the embarrassment of it.
 
I'd hate to see our inferior troops in the way of the more professional US troops.

Go get 'em fellers! We're behind you 100%. :thumbsup:
 
My uncle is mid-high ranking army officer, who in his early 60s, reenlisted and entered combat zones as a medic. A staunch Republican who proudly war BUSH CHENEY bumper stickers and a veteran of past wars including Vietnam, he ended up as far as I know, voting for Obama and saying we need to leave Afghanistan. What this tells me is that the situation is something I know very little of. I am a moderately liberal democrat who would otherwise be supporting a troop increase, because I believe if you're going to go to war, really go for it and commit to win. But if my uncle is saying that it's time to get out, all I know is that I don't know enough.
 
Do you know, I hope the Taliban are defeated and I hope the present lunatic in power in Afghanistan goes too, he's not much better than the Taliban, but I just don't see NATO sorting this out. Its beyond them.
 
Polls iv seen show Americans are pretty evenly divided on the issue of the war in Afghanistan.

I honestly think it would be a waste to pull out now, after all these years. We didn't come to Afghanistan to loose. Where Americans, we came there to win.

I believe we came to Afghanistan for a good reason and I don't think its time to surrender and go home.

I know, it sucks that people die in war. That is just the way it is though. If people are over there, its because they signed up for it right? Obviously I don't want them to get killed but I'm saying unfortunately there will be those who are killed and that is how war.
 
The United States' Bush Doctrine stated that, as policy, it would not distinguish between terrorist organizations and nations or governments that harbor them.
I support that.

We would not distinguish between murderers and people who harbour murderers, or even people who live around people who harbour murderers. Kill them all!

Wait. What?
 
We would not distinguish between murderers and people who harbour murderers, or even people who live around people who harbour murderers. Kill them all!

Wait. What?

No I was just using it as an example for Afghanistan why I support it. Ill edit it out.
I'm by no means a huge Bush supporter.
 
Bush didn't even distinguish between those who harbor them and those that don't.

I kinda wish we weren't negotiating with Iran at least. They support terrorism and hate our nation and Israel. Those are a few big reasons why I don't want the US to negotiate with them.
 
We would not distinguish between murderers and people who harbour murderers, or even people who live around people who harbour murderers. Kill them all!

Wait. What?

I think though, that the plan originally was meaning if a nation is purposely harboring terrorist then there would be no distinction made? (Like Afghanistan with Osama bin Laden and other high ranking Al-Qaeda members, who the Taliban where helping out. And the Taliban was the head of the Afghanistan government.)
 
Well, it would be bit of a waste to give up know, wouldn't it? There would seem to be no choice but to continue, and to do so successfully requires more troops.

Learn the concept of sunk cost. Just because poor decision-making has led to great losses and you're "in" which will cause more losses, doesn't mean you should evaluate it as "oh well, we've already incurred all these losses, so we can't stop now". Sunk costs should have no effect on a decision. Whether it's financial or about life.
 
I kinda wish we weren't negotiating with Iran at least. They support terrorism and hate our nation and Israel. Those are a few big reasons why I don't want the US to negotiate with them.
What's the difference between Iran and Israel, except for alliance with the U.S.? Both are terrorist states.
 
What's the difference between Iran and Israel, except for alliance with the U.S.? Both are terrorist states.

Iran-Cracks down on democracy and violently oppresses any opposition.
Iran-Supports terrorism and killing of Americans and American Allies.
Iran-Supplies terrorist organizations so they can kill Americans and American Allies.
Iran-Hates the US and its allies.

Israel-there have been crimes committed by the military and government, sure. But when is there a war that doesn't have at least some controversy of human rights violations. Not saying its right, but when your surrounded by enemies and are a small nation there may be times when you go a little too excessive. I don't believe the Israel government supported killing Palestinian civilians on purpose anyways. Not defending those bad things they have done though.
 
Iran-Cracks down on democracy and violently oppresses any opposition.
Iran-Supports terrorism and killing of Americans and American Allies.
Iran-Supplies terrorist organizations so they can kill Americans and American Allies.
Iran-Hates the US and its allies.

Israel-there have been crimes committed by the military and government, sure. But when is there a war that doesn't have at least some controversy of human rights violations. Not saying its right, but when your surrounded by enemies and are a small nation there may be times when you go a little too excessive. I don't believe the Israel government supported killing Palestinian civilians on purpose anyways. Not defending those bad things they have done though.

If that's your criteria... :lol:
 
3 out of 4 of his criteria involve alliance or lack thereof with the United States.

And considering how frequenlty over the years US allies have either completely ignored or cracked down on democracy, even that one isn't valid
 
3 out of 4 of his criteria involve alliance or lack thereof with the United States.

Supporting terrorist organizations and equipping them so they can kill Americans and American allies is enough, isn't it?
 
Top Bottom