Most of you know I am very critical of Obama but it looks like he is going to send about 20,000 to 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan which is what needs to be done. At least, that is the rumor on the street.
For all of you who support Obama, I'm assuming you will be against this decision. Or am I wrong?
Do you support Obama any less?
I am really curious to see his support for this move from his supporters. I'm sure the people against Obama will say he needs to send more than 30,000 but we can expect that. I want to hear from his supporters though.
Many of Obama's supporters have reservations about his decision to send 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan. I'm afraid he's fallen into the "Afghanistan trap" that caught the Soviets and before that the Brits a couple of times. Like Vietnam, there is a limit to how long the Americans will support this military campaign.
Look what was said about Iraq a few years ago. What a difference a few thousand troops make. Well that and Al Qaeda in Iraq screwing up the alliance with the Sunni sheiks.
We did screw the pooch by sending in troops the way we did. That was not the way to take out Al Qaeda. Still our military has budgets to justify, so that's why we did what we did. A better choice would have been to send in SF teams and do a snatch and grab.
We didn't do things that way and now we're stuck with an obligation to finish the job and finish it right. If we cut an run like we did in Somalia, well we all know how that ended. It will cost more lives in the long term, but at least this interminable fighting will end. It was this lack of resolve to end the thing that doomed us in South Vietnam and will doom us again today, too.
You sir are absolutely right.Why are we in Afghanistan?I hope its not the same reason we were in Vietnam...
In tactical terms, to "win," i.e. take Afghanistan from the Taliban and al-Qaeda, I believe that the best way is to send a ton of troops, as it seems he might do. The whole "a couple well-trained special forces can take out bad guys without any major fights" has been proven wrong over and over. Obama knows this.
However, deciding to send the troops would be a long-term commitment (at least 5 years), and these wars clearly lose popularity quickly and have a history of going really badly. Obama clearly knows this as well. I don't envy his position.
I personally believe that we should do it, but do it right, using the same counter-insurgency strategy used in the surge. Hopefully he calls Petreus back. However, I will support his decision should he decide not. He is a symbol that America has changed, and the Taliban and al-Qaeda have much less to rally their support behind without an aggressive America.
According to CNN< he will definitely send troops but he will talk about his justifications and lay out plans again..
I am not a fan Of OBAMA, and I dont want my tax money supporting the fight and cause of other country when I can see some people here who needs more support..
more troops more targets . its a bad idea .it was said that Afghanistan was like a angry mouth that swallowed Russian divisions whole. i wish Obama wouldn't but its not my call.Im not a backseat driver . hes the president for better or worse.like all leaders he to will make mistakes.
It depends on what you believe in and the reasons for being there. Here's ten - agree or disagree....
1. It was to destroy the Taliban and catch Bin Laden
2. It was to create democratic government
3. It was to prevent a breeding ground for extreme Islamic terrorism and by so doing...
4. It was to protect the west, and...
5. It was to help Pakistan..because...
6. The Taliban could regroup and cause civil war...because...
7. Pakistan has nuclear weapons...which is bad...because
8. That will threaten the west...which is
9. The reason for being there. And finally...
10.The home grown fundamentalists in Britain and the USA won't have anywhere to hone their skills in the camps.
Thereby (proposition) we are protecting the safety of the western world.
However, when a hole is so deep, it's not easy dig out of, and considering that the eye came off the ball to invade Iraq (the Bush/Blur initiative), the whole mess became a hotch-potch of United Nations indecision, which in turn has proved to be a paper tiger. Nothing new about that - the League of Nations had the same idealism after WWI. Fat lot of good that did!
To pull out now, no matter how agreeable that may seem, would be disastrous. A corrupt and weak Afghan government would remain in power, manipulated by a resurgent Taliban and then it's back to no.1.
And lets not forget the genuine Afghan citizens, who have suffered years of distress, either through Warlord governance, Russian exploitation and effective non-government similar to Somalia. (The new refuge incidentally for Al Qaeda)and what about the Afghan women, who will consider that hell has returned?
This is the long-haul and no President or Prime Minister worth his salt is going to walk away. The loss of life is tragic, but it's not Vietnam, nor Korea. There is no Soviet Union anymore so the status quo doesn't exist. This is the new world challenges of the 21st century, and the war must be won, for the sake of all - Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Humanists, Atheists and everyone else who wants to live in peace. Because, at the end of the day, that's all we've got to live for.
I differ with point 1. in that the mission was not to destroy the Taliban but rather to destroy or root out Al Qaeda and capture or kill Osama bin Laden. The Taliban had nothing directly to do with 9-11 other than provide a haven and training base for Bin Laden.
Al Qaeda cells are scattered all over the Middle East and in many western countries. Someone said recently that there are no more than 100 Al Qaeda remaining in Afghanistan (or Afghainistan and Pakistan, I can't recall)and that if they are denied Pakistan and Afghanistan, Yemen and Somalia and perhaps other countries will provide fertile ground for Al Qaeda training activities.
what is this? time table? to quote the song it wont be over till its over over there. no matter how long no matter what the cost we will not stop till we beat the liveing tar out of our enemy. thats why we havent really won a war since ww2. because we just dont have the heart for it. any enemy of ours now simply has to wait till we puss out. i hate war but war is here it always has and will be. if we do not fight it we will lose it. 1 million troops fighting a half assed war and we still wont win. let the exsisting troops fight for real we might have a chance
I am certainly not a fan of Obama, however I do believe the war to win over Afghanistan is by sending more troops rather than letting small groups of SF soldiers deal with it, like egiv mentioned, because it has certainly failed in the past. We just cannot rely on that type of warfare to win over an entire country. Troop surges should be based, like egiv said again, around counterinsurgency (COIN) strategies. These strategies include not only a war-fighting role to eliminate the insurgency, but to create effective methods of literally countering the insurgency. This includes road-building (a lack of roads is what helped lead to the Soviet defeat), protection from militant Taliban operators, counter-narcotics to stop the poppy farming in southern Afghanistan, and to help secure the current Karzai Administration and create a stable government for future endurance. Additionally, 90% of the Taliban insurgents are not "hardcore" fighters but simple Afghan people who have been influenced by Taliban propaganda, either peaceful or violent. This means to help us dramatically defeat the Taliban, we need to sway the majority of these people back to the US/ Coalition side, drastically reducing the Taliban war-fighting capacity against us. The main objective is not to kill the insurgents, but to literally win over the people. This can only be done by a massive troop surge to accomplish the massive task at hand. If Obama wishes to pursue a fully counterterrorism operation in Afghanistan, and even if it does succeed, the Taliban will just reemerge again, like it has in the past. Counterterrorism only works in the short-term, where as counterinsurgency works for the long-term. Afghanistan must become a secure country in order to create an environment that does not harbor terrorists in the war on globalized terrorism and the only way that is possible is through counterinsurgency, i.e. more troops.
A lot of people criticized Pres. Bush for not doing more about Afghanistan. Maybe he was smarter than people gave him credit for.
History Goy, was your name actually supposed to be "History Guy" but you made a typo?
actually, he's got several typos.
re: bush: maybe he meant to type maybe he isn't as smart as people think he is.
Well, I don't know anyone (even conservatives) who actually think he's smart. lol
I appreciate that Obama has chosen a real war, at least. I suppose I know it is all about oil underneath it all, still, and so does he, but new ways of thinking take time and I suppose he's ascertained the needs are immediate... So, long term/short term weighing of benefits/losses.
I don't disrespect him for that. Starry-eyed idealism doesn't often go hand in hand with the practicalities of any job.
Sending more troops for me will definitely be a disappointment, but not a dealbreaker.
I understand his reasoning if he does choose to send in more troops, I just kind of feel like if you replaced "terrorist" with "communist" you'd have exactly the same reasoning that was used to justify escalations in Vietnam, and it's as flawed now as it was then.
We're the invaders, after all. We can blow up terrorists until blood runs like rivers in the street and there will still be more to kill because Afghanistan is their home. Our very presence there encourages the creation of more terrorists. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, after all.
although there were no expectations on my part, he did promise hope and change, crawling up on the shoulders of those who bought into the concept, then allowing them to carry him into a place and position where he could deliver.
twenty five percent of the way through his presidency we have seen little in the way of change. hope flew out the window just weeks after inauguration. major players in the bush debacle were left in place, continuing with their long-term strategies and agendas.
tomorrow's announcement will do little more than increase bloodshed and holds open the door for even more escalations in the future.
i wonder how sharp the stinging sensation is feeling on the cheeks of the nobel peace prize committee members.
If he sends more troops to Afghanistan? I would think he would be doing exactly what he campaigned extensively on regarding Middle East military policy. If he sent 20,000 to Iraq I would be very disappointed.
I will attempt to clarify a few things here for those that need it. I don't claim to know everything, I just want to post my view, if you don't mind.
Presidents do make mistakes but they need to show that they learn from them because by doing so it means he will save countless LIVES. In my view the reason for us entering this war was to pursue and irradicate weapons of mass destruction, to apprehend Bin Laden and to bring Al-Qaida to justice. As it turned out we went after the wrong country, we dragged Saddam out of his home (granted he was evil but I can think of more evil leaders that continue their evil ways unchecked and with no accountability). We killed hundreds of thousands including most of his family. For What?
We are now in a whole different war, if you think we are in Afghanistan to build churches, schools and bring democracy to the region you are sadly misinformed. We are in Afghanistans because the puppets in Washington are in the pockets of the Oil Rich Elite. The Oil magnates and all their filthy rich pawns investors. If you're mother was a multi-millionaire wouldn't you want to be in her will? Sure, so then you would have to please her right? Basically and very simplified condensation of what's going on. Where this had it's beginnings was in the Bush era or at least these were the one's who flexed their muscle in the MiddleEast using the excuse that they were going there to clean out Al-Qaida cells, maybe it did start out as such. LOL Incidentally, the Bush Administration were and have been fully invested in Oil for years. from President Bush to Rice to Cheney and their top key aides. Remember when our oil went to over $100 per barrel? These high profile and powerful officials and leaders of our country are now as we speak cutting deals in Iraq etc. that involve territory and obscenely huge profits that will by the way not enrich our country. In fact it will cost us in the lives of our loved ones. The few will profit at the expense of many. Another point I want to make is that Al-Qaida did not breed in Afghanistan or Iraq or Pakistan, it bred in Germany. Again we are not in Afghanistan to protect the West (us), we are not there to protect the women or the Afghans, we are there to stabilize Afghanistan so we can clear the way for construction of the pipeline which will mean mega bucks to affluent special interests. We are considered the "common people" and they are really good at keepin the "common people" quiet.
Originally the Taliban was not our enemy, in fact the US was working with the Taliban but I can't recall what that was about, I will look up the history of Taliban and US or you can do some research on this if you like. The Taliban was the major governing party in Afghanistan and admittedly were a cruel and unjust government but the memory of their ways is rapidly dimming in the face of our occupation. We are the best recruits of Afghans into the Taliban military and that is a danger that we will face if we don't exit now. Than what will Washington say is the reason we are there?
It's all about Power and Money. Al-Qaida is not in Afghanistan the very few that are left are in Pakistan and possibly in the U.S., training in Apartments and attending our colleges. I am not saying that we should look at every Muslim with suspicion because we are talking about probably numbers in the 100's of thousands of Muslims here in the US and maybe a couple of hundred of Al-Qaida or hostile covert and dormant Ji-Hadists. This war has become a civil war between Afghanistan and the former government (Taliban) and we have no business there. As I said we are not there for that reason but just by being there we will need to be involved to the anger of the Taliban and most Afghans. I say bring the draft, and/or impose a war surtax on everyone except the military and their families. Then and only then will all those gun-ho war mongers quiet down They should walk the talk, it's easy to agree to send troops to war but when it hits close to home it's a different thing right? No country has EVER succeeded in changing or bringing the MiddleEast into submission in any way. Afghanistan is referred to as "the graveyard of empires", you can't change religious ideals, cultures and traditions with guns, bombs and tanks. These people don't even understand what you want from them and we don't understand their ways, cultue, religion and language, it's another Vietnam all over again. Yes I agree that we should fight but we should do it when the goal is clear and it's an honorable cause like protecting our country this is not the case here. Blood for oil is the most vicious and evil rationale to fight for. google Smedley Butler-a highly decorated US Marine. This is a re-enactment of a speech he made that has been largely covered up by the government. You can also find it on YouTube.
I am only setting forth some of my views.
Wait, I thought Obama was bringing our troops home on the first day he was in office? You mean they are still over there?
Thats what he preached over 300 times durring his campain. hmmm. feel the knife in your back yet?
False. He said he would bring the troops home from Iraq and fight the war we should have fought in 2003, Afghanistan. Maybe you weren't paying attention.
when I am at a computer that I can post videos, I will post exactly what he said.
Is The Obama's dithering on this vital issue finally coming to an end? About damn time.
The Obama didn't promise to bring all our troops home from Afghanistan right away. In fact, on the campaign trail he repeatedly brought it up as a "necessary war" so he could satisfy his base by declaring Iraq 'lost' and pull the hippy nostalgia string while still looking 'tough' (as a cover for his utter inexperience) by showing his resolve on Afghanistan. The problem is that when Pelosi/Reid were proven wrong and the focus started to shift away from Iraq, Afghanistan stopped being seen only in contrast and became the new target for all the pacifism, defeatism, cultural prejudice, knee-jerk opposition to anything involving the US military, anti-Americanism, and nutty conspiracy-spinning that Iraq had previously attracted. And when it became clear that The Obama would have to deal with Afghanistan beyond using it as a foil to Iraq, the long dithering began.
You should stick to one-liners of out-of-context quotes, there is no coherence to that post. You attack Obama for dithering, yet he has decided to follow through with Afghanistan, and he drew down Iraq, both as he promised during the campaign. Are you arguing that this is incorrect? I am glad that he took his time to make such an important decision, I wish Bush had done the same.
Just a reminder, the Taliban, which was the government of Afghanistan at one point and will be again if they get their way, supported attacks on our soil which killed thousands of civilians at a time when we weren't at war with them.
That is why our troops are in Afghanistan now.
From what I've read, we got involved in the Vietnam conflict because the South Vietnamese government requested our help.
So, no, we are not in Afghanistan for the same reasons we fought in Vietnam.
Thats good to hear cause I'd hate to think we were sending our young men to die for some obscure veiled reason.
The Saudis have been linked with Bin Laden who was the architect of 9/11 so why aren't we bombing them?
Vietnam?Why should good American men die for a cause that has no bearing on America?
Please don't pull out the stop Communism card cause thats been proven to have been crap.
Check out the emerging info on 9/11,you might change your mind.
chambersgirl, can you post that link. email me if you don't know how.
I'm living with hope that one day we will wake up and start to fix our own problems. Irak, Iran, Afganistan, Pakistan, Israel, Palestine, Midle East,.......etc.
Give me a brake! or BETTER "GIVE AS A JOBS".
How long we really need to try to fix this mess, before we figure it out: we just trowing our taxpayers mone into the fire.
Blame Obama or Bush, who cares anymore? Wrong is just wrong.
We gona show to the world how our president Obama is strong change, that moto is fadin and fading everyday.
He is just follower of Bush wrong policy. I used to like him before, not any more. I would truly love to c the change, but not like change,THE WOR 4 THE WOR.
HAPPY HOLLYDAYS 2 ALL OF U.
Many seem to have forgotten that Obama inherited this war. He took the time to figure out what to do. Put the troops in, slow the carnage with numbers, train the Afghanistan police and military then get the hell out! What's wrong with that?
by Scott Belford 6 years ago
One of President Bush's arguments for invading Iraq was the strong Hussain-al Qaeda connection. The anti-Iraq invasion group said there was only very skimpy evidence of that and much stronger evidence that such an arrangement couldn't exist;. After several extensive post-war...
by Dave McClure 11 years ago
------------------------------------------------------------KABUL, Afghanistan - President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan said yesterday that he is in full agreement with President Obama's newly announced strategy for the country, saying it was "exactly what the Afghan people were hoping...
by Credence2 6 years ago
Now that we are talking about better and worse presidents as judged by a wide variety of historians it is interesting to see that since the beginning of the 20th century the only president that received a lower score than GW Bush was Warren Harding (1921-23). That's pretty bad, here is the...
by rhamson 10 years ago
With the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan by US troops and recent sanctions being considered in Iran, who put the US in charge of cleaning up these countries and instituting democracy as the government that should rule these nations?The US has a perfect right to defend itself from enemies without...
by Army Infantry Mom 9 years ago
Attack on remote Afghan outposts kills 8 US troops - http://bit.ly/3iD702 Obama better get on his job, quit lally gagging around on late night talk shows and decide what hes going to do - Either A - Give McCrystal EVERYTHING he asked for,..NOW !!!!orB - Get the F*ck Out Now...
by Ralph Deeds 9 years ago
Richard Holbrooke warned of the danger of Afghanistan becoming another Vietnam. He opposed Obama's surge. He was working on a negotiated settlement of what amounts to a civil war between the Taliban and the government in Kabul. He believed that "every conflict has to end at the negotiating...
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|