WH Advisors Pushing For 30,000 More Troops To Afghanistan
Top advisers to President Obama are coalescing around a plan for 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, Adm. Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton are in the loop. But President Obama is reportedly skeptical as to how much the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan can execute a US strategy.
Three of the options call for specific levels of additional troops. The low-end option would add 20,000 to 25,000 troops, a middle option calls for about 30,000, and another embraces Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal’s request for roughly 40,000 more troops. Administration officials said that a fourth option was added only in the past few days. They declined to identify any troop level attached to it.
I’m against it. The ‘Generals’ will always say they can win it with more troops ( cannon fodder) and more material (military-industrial complex pork projects). We’re trying to fight a twenty-first century war in a tenth century scenario…and at what cost? Are there any projections of how much money/dollars this will cost?…and why aren’t there any of these projections?
Budda Reply:
November 11th, 2009 at 1:47 am
and what is to gain or lose? (besides lives and $$ ?)
November 11th, 2009 at 1:08 am
We already have Pentagon and CIA drone programs that claim responsibility for killing more than half of al Qaeda’s top leadership.
And ain’t that the objective?
What the hell else do we need?
November 11th, 2009 at 3:33 am
“Increasing troops is only going to fuel insurgency. We need to stop our combat operations in areas where we are fighting people only because they are fighting us. Otherwise, it’s going to be 2013, we’re going to look back four years and we’re going to say, “What did we accomplish? What did we get? What was this worth? What did we get out of this?”
November 11th, 2009 at 4:34 am
This war has made less sense than Vietnam, but yet a lot less people have done anything to even speak out against it… Forgive me for not being more informed and watching the news like a hawk, but I have no idea why we are over there in the first place!! It’s all so complicated to me that it doesn’t make any sense anyway! I don’t even remember when the “War in Iraq” and the War in Afghanistan” became 2 separate entities! It’s like the only one’s who really even know half of what’s going on are in the military, but even they are being lied to…
TDro319 Reply:
November 11th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
The reason nobody is speaking out against this war is because it consists of a volunteer army. The draft was abolished by the Nixon administration (one of Nixon’s greatest achievements).
Now, if the draft were to be reinstated, you’d see an uprising immediately. And all these young republicans who are pro-war, will quickly turn anti-war as soon as they learn they’d be forced to enlist.
November 11th, 2009 at 5:17 am
What happened to the 60’s? There needs to be another Paradigm Shift…
burqa Reply:
November 11th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
“What happened to the 60’s?”
It struggled along until disco……………… then that was all she wrote….
OldLefty Reply:
November 11th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
“What happened to the 60’s?”
It struggled along until disco……………… then that was all she wrote….
And don’t forget there was a draft.
November 11th, 2009 at 5:25 am
Mr president,
The generals demand more troops—give it to
them.
But you should also demand for a deadline for
them to terminate the war:
6-12 months is just right to target,quarantine the enemies who have no army,no navy etc…
Then bring back our troops home,(all troops).
No more perpetual wars!! Is that part of our
economy?
John Galt Reply:
November 11th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
The generals demand more troops—give it to
them.
But you should also demand for a deadline for
them to terminate the war:
I don’t often comment on the war, but here I am with Pierre. I think the experts should be listened too. And, reasonable goals and deadlines should be established.
It’s there that I thought Dubya failed.
burqa Reply:
November 11th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
I agree John.
What you said goes all the way back to the Romans who gave their commanders such parameters.
Also, we must bear in mind that just as platoon, company and division commanders have different perspectives when it comes to warfare, so does the president compared to officers in the field or in the Pentagon.
At each level, the differing perspectives cause different opinions to be held.
We can not expect McChrystal to consider troop levels in other parts of the globe when he makes his recommendations…
crh3e Reply:
November 11th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
When have generals not wanted more troops?
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
November 11th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
and schools want more money.
crh3e Reply:
November 11th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
actually I might be with you on that analogy. I’m glad I graduated high school before SOL tests became the norm (’99). Gimme a break, one size does not fit all. SOLs are a joke and take away a teacher’s ability to have an individual effect on the pupil. I would never want to be a teacher with big brother cramming SOLs down my students throats.
crh3e Reply:
November 11th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
but at the same time, my money would go to helping kids learn rather than war without end.
November 11th, 2009 at 10:55 am
President Obama has to look beyond just the military plan being presented, he has to look at what we have available, our distribution of forces around the globe as well as the political effects of his decisions at home and internationally.
What is not being widely reported is most of our ground units are not rated as being fully ready for deployment because of the wear and tear of Iraq.
Sending 20, 30, or 40,000 troops is not a strategy. Strategy consists of what you do with them consistent with their training. We have no need for heavy armored divisions in Afghanistan, for example.
A large part of the debate going on right now is whether the focus will be on counterterrorism or counterinsurgency.
My guess is Obama will tell McChrystal that he will get a troop increase in addition to the troops already added, but that he will have to begin winding it down in 2 years. I think Obama realizes it is ultimately a losing proposition to support a corrupt government that can not win the loyalty of the people. I think Obama will want McChrystal to redouble efforts at counterterrorism and we will see special operations missions into Pakistan to get bin Laden.
Once we have bin Laden, getting out will be far easier….
crh3e Reply:
November 11th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
true once we have bin Laden getting out may be easier…….but are we really kidding ourselves that that is all we need to do? Geez, doesn’t anybody understand there are thousands of radical Islamic fascists waiting to take his place? Heck, one of his own might sell him out just to be the number one terrorist. We aren’t dealing with civilized folks here.
crh3e Reply:
November 11th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
BTW I’m for pulling the troops out of Afghanistan now even though that would so piss Pakistan off. I think the best foreign policy is to leave people alone. Dubya agreed with having a more “humble” foreign policy as candidate for POTUS in ‘00.
crh3e Reply:
November 11th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
except for supplying humanitarian aid, that’s the only time I’d bother with other countries. The slower we are to cutting ourselves from dependency on foreign oil, the more damage we do to this country by getting involved in traps like Afghanistan and Iraq.
burqa Reply:
November 11th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
I agree.
I still think it would make it a lot easier politically after they get bin Laden.
Right now I hope they realize establishing a stable government is not possible because the current bunch is so corrupt.
The Taliban, by contrast, is overall not corrupt and their leaders live simply among the people.
The Taliban showed it is not capable of ruling a country, but that their talent is mainly as an insurgent group and that’s about it.
If we left and they managed to get back in power, they would be as inept as they were the last time and would find themselves beset by other insurgents whom they would not be able to fully defeat. The reason for that is because the ineptitude of the Taliban would insure a large segment of the population would object to them…
crh3e Reply:
November 11th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
Agreed, an interesting AP article just posted states Pres. Obama is not happy with the suggested strategies from his national security team and wanting to know when and how our troops can begin turning responsibility over to the Afghan govt, according to a senior official.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_us_afghanistan
God I’m praying he makes the right choice.
November 11th, 2009 at 2:56 pm