It is imperitive that a decision be made regarding the battle in Afghanistan. The longer we leave US troops (and others) there without the troops necessary to truly win, then we will see lives lost and dollars wasted in a most tragic way.
The Times OnLine has a good article out today that paints a fairly grim picture of the situation over there. From the other military people I've spoken with who have recently returned or are currently fighting in Afghanistan, the story is quite accurate.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/Afghanistan/article6888996.ece
The most important paragraph in the story is:
"With enough effort, resources and time, the marines are confident the population can be won over. But, with the platoon’s influence limited to a small area around their base, many soldiers wonder if the Taliban and Al-Qaeda may simply outlast them, or if the US and Afghan governments have the resolve to send enough troops to win."
GEN McChrystol has made his recommendation months ago, a decision by Washington needs to be made now.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 103
It just doesn't make sense.
For those of us with friends or family over there, the priority is our people. If it was yours over there, so would you most likely.
What happened to the anti war Left once their guy got in office? Good question as no one hears from them anymore.
Now we blame McChrystal who is fighting for more troops? Get real, Guy.
Not to say there won't be a political fight, but right now, health care is "bottling up" any other legislative efforts. "Czars," and other executive powers have to be scrutinized by the media, which is why the OA is attacking FNC. I'm still wondering if any health care bill will be passed, contrary to popular wisdom.
Back to the point of the post, Obama's inaction in Afghanistan is becoming a hallmark of his presidency. He can say, back in March, that he has a new commander, and a new policy for Afghanistan. Six months later, he can say that he has to formulate a new policy, because the one he "inherited" from the Bush administration wasn't working. However, they simultaneously denied getting any strategic brief from the BA, until recent days.
Obama endorsed McChrystal, and the current strategy, soon after he came into office. He had been briefed on the BA's strategy, and plenty of different ideas from his own advisers. He seems torn between the two, now, and the result is inaction. His "rethinking" of the strategic goal is costing American lives. As Pakistan is attacking the Taliban from the other side of the Waziristan border, the administration floats the idea of only attacking Al Queda, and including the Taliban in the Afgan government.
Great post, Dale! Featured you on GRAFFITI POLITTI, of course!
And offering money to the Taliban to jump ship.
Dale Coparanis Oct 26, 2009, 2:31pm EDT
And just who decides when an opinion has value?
He's been called on it. A month later, we are still waiting.
Obama = Incompetence as far as I'm concerned.
He's guilty of murdering the soldiers whom he refuses to supportl He should pull them out if he's not going to send support.
My son just got back from Iraq, thank God, I feel soooo badly for those mothers who have a child there under this presidents military incompetence.
The only decision to be made is whether we want to spend a fortune of money we don't have (and human life, and the increase in terrorism our actions are causing) continuing to try to make the country stable (after 8 years of not being able to do so) so the pipeline can be secure.
If it's so simple, what's the one right thing to do? That's what I notice is missing from the usual gang of Gather Know-nothings in the midst of all the baseless derision and flippant remarks. If the decision should have been made before McChrystal declared he couldn't do what he said he could, then stop flapping your gums and tell us what that decision should have been if it's so obvious.
I hope the OA can come up with a real "game changing" idea, because it's the only thing that would justify his temporizing during a surge in attacks against US person
Obama made the public promise to support his handpicked general in a war he states is needful. He is now talking of changing a policy he ordered only a few months ago. How is it wrong to ask him to speed it up?
He is in charge, now troops are dying as we wonder what the change will be. Like many parents or those with friends/relatives in the combat zones, I just want some certainty.
Are you saying President Obama is not still supporting his hand-picked general? As far as I know, the hand-picked general is saying the status quo isn't working and Obama has engaged the civilian decision-making process to respond to that. I would have liked to have seen the hand-picked general stay within the chain of command, because I don't think civilian response would have been any different. McChrystal's approach has just made every junk-bond salesman and blundit in the country an overnight military expert.
You see, the Commander-in-Chief is also a civilian with very little foreign policy experience and absolutely no experience with the military. Our generals have that experience and the benefit of commanders beneath them who are on the ground, see the conditions, and talk to the people in Afghanistan.
Bush and Rumsfield finally listened to the generals in Iraq and rightly so. Petraeus' plan was right on target. In July 2008, presidential candidate Obama stated: "We need a sense of urgency and determination. We need urgency because the threat from the Taliban and al-Qaida is growing and we must act; we need determination because it will take time to prevail. But with the right strategy and the resources to back it up, we will get the job done."
Right now we have the strategy AND the resources. The 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment has done an incredible job in the Nawa district of Helmand province. The Taliban have lost their influence there and the marines have built trust and cooperation with the locals. Let's not loose that. Let's build on what's been already done and allow these good men and women in our military do what they are good at.
Would you like him to give Bush a call, with all his foreign policy experience, he'd probably be someone to listen to.
Bush and Wolfowitz listened to a global smuggler named Chelabi, and Rumsfeld didn't listen to anyone but Rumsfeld. No one listened to Petraeus until it was seven years too late. Rumsfeld wasn't even around when Petraeus suggested a strategy, Petraeus didn't suggest his strategy to the London press club first, and if Rumsfeld would have had his way there wouldn't be any Petraeus.
If this guy McChrystal does indeed have military expertise to offer, as you so condescendingly point out, I hope he gives the President something more to go on than "I could 'win' with more men." I could say the same thing.
None of this justifies you glib little equation. Politicians in my country don't "play armchair generals"; they actually control the military. The only armchair general I see here is YOU. And your imitation of a bad Japanese movie is really getting wearisome. When you have nothing to say, you should stop moving your lips.
Oh, I bet you're still mad at some grade school teacher for not patting you on the head.
If it were indeed, "old history" which we "can do nothing" about, we wouldn't be spending so much time, money, and so many precious lives trying to do exactly that--something about it.
You hate-radio zombies might be prepared to continue to stick your heads in the sand and claim nothing went wrong and there's nothing to fix, but the President realizes, if your ilk doesn't, that it's time to make a considered decision once and for all instead of re-acting justifying, re-acting and justifying, bombing and lying, bombing and lying.
You're wasting your time and mine with this whining. There's finally a decision being made. If you actually do any of the praying you TALK about, it's time to shut up and do it.
b) Guy is right, Afghanistan (just like Iraq) is FUBAR
c) Karzai controls Kabul. The same druglords and warlords that controlled the rest of the country before we invaded, control the country now, and will after we leave.
Would I like for him to give Bush a call? Why Guy, sweetheart, do you think that would help him? I hadn't suggested it but obviously it is on your mind. Do you have Bush's number handy? Give Barry a call and pass that number on, would you?
Frankly, Guy, I could care less who Bush and Wolfowitz listened to, but I do care that someone listened to Petraeus. Good on them, don't you think? And why would Petraeus have to suggest his strategy to the London press club first? Are you suggesting that he should have or do you have some sort of attitude problem with McChrystal? If you've got a problem with McChrystal, maybe you ought to tell Barry about it when you give him Bush's number. Alrighty then.
So where were we? Oh yes, you were all in a froth about McChrystal talking to the London press club so you figure we should throw out his plan. Sort of a baby with the bathwater type of scenario. How smart you are! What a guy!
And I'm so sorry you don't see the connection to my "glib little equation." But I can see you found condescension in the majority of answers on this post. Since you have no knowledge of my background (I'm playing armchair generals?) and you have a preference to bad Japanese movies, perhaps it is you who have nothing worthwhile to add here except your bad attitude and self-important, egocentric commentary, and you'd be far happier and more civil by plunking in a few DVDs of your favorite B grade movies.
Again, Guy, bless your heart.
b) Guy is right, Afghanistan (just like Iraq) is FUBAR
c) Karzai controls Kabul. The same druglords and warlords that controlled the rest of the country before we invaded, control the country now, and will after we leave.
Robert, nobody suggested the president have military experience. That's why he needs military advisors working with him. And this one in particular has no military experience so he needs all the help he can get. Obviously he is very unsure of his next step and is hesitating. Why? Oh, we can have all kinds of scenarios here.
Guy is not right and I do not agree with you that Afghanistan and Iraq are FUBAR. You're going to toss out all of the advances we have made in Iraq just to tie it in with Afghanistan?
And regarding Karzai, I see you are with the opium trade version but I do seem to recall you being aware of the pipeline version also. Who cares? Are you implying we should be nation building so we should get all cozy with Karzai? If you are on the opium trade bandwagon, then you should understand why Karzai would want to be all cozy with the NATO alliance. Afterall, it was the US who helped them start up this little deal.
The place has thwarted conquest more often than it's been conquered, but neither one has made an ounce of difference
Boy, Guy, that's such a standard response. Do yourself a favor and do a little reading on Middle Eastern history, ok? Ok!
Lee says: You can't really be that naive. Even I'm not that naive.
He's the president, he should make water or get off the pot already.
He yammered and yammered Afghanistan was the place to be ... now that he's there well ... I mean what was all that yammering about? Campaign rhetoric? Mmm.... I think so else he'd already been in or out but not on the fence.
He's middle-of-the-roading it when it comes to taking care of the troops and there is no two ways about it. Ya know what happens when you stand on top of a fence or in the middle of road for too long .... you fall off the fence, and you get hit by a truck.
Except in this case it won't just be the president hit by that truck, he'll take our troops with him and any confidence they might have had in him right down the tubes.
And you can continue to yammer and yammer and yammer and yammer, but the decision isn't going to come a nano-second sooner or later.
I know that makes you feel left out, but you're right where you need to be. Go back to your soaps and leave the decision-making to those who can think.
President Obama has listened to General McChrystal, and has also listened to Secretary Gates, the other Generals, his national security team, his Secretary of State, his vice-president, and a few dozen (hundred) other informed people. He has asked the questions that needed to be asked, questions that clearly had never been asked before, about various scenarios, options, timetables, availability of partners in Afghanistan (keep in mind this is someone elses country, so there has to be someone there capable of doing what needs to be done), ramifications on the surrounding neighborhood, impacts on relationships with other countries, whether we can get other countries to help us stabilize a notoriously unstable country glued together with silly string for centuries, etc.
In other words, the President is taking responsibility for making an adult decision in an extremely critical matter. Something that, if it had been done previously, may have meant we wouldn't still be here 8 years after we went in without a plan, then abandoned without any foresight.
So please, can we all try to be adults as well and think beyond petty political gamesmanship? That would be a nice change.
Leadership is about making informed decisions, not "making a decision" just because some people think a month is too long after an 8 year wait. Keep in mind that the previous administration ignored calls for more troops for years.
Also keep in mind that we don't even know who is in charge in Afghanistan, and won't until after the runoff election. Even then we're likely to be in a position where we are trying to secure a country that has effectively no central government. So unless we want to just do something for show, actually collecting information and making an informed decision rather than some knee-jerk reaction is the appropriate response.
A) We had many successes in Afghanistan at the beginning (2001) and
B) we've actually been involved for 30 years, starting in 1979 when Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. Then continued with the Carter Doctrine where he said, "An attempt by any outside force to gain of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force."
Just because Obama is in office doesn't mean we are starting with Year Zero. Plus he's been in office for 8 months, surely there is a lot of information already collected.
Keep in mind that the previous administration ignored calls for more troops for years.
So waiting is good or bad?
Yes, of course. But think about it. We went in without any real thought other than to get the guys who created 9/11. Then in all honesty we didn't do a good job at getting them, which is why bin Laden and others are still around. We even botched it when we had him cornered, which now effectively has dragged a second sovereign nation into the calculus. Finally, we dropped the ball by turning our attentions to Iraq and ignoring the real perpetrators of 9/11.
In short, our lack of thought and poor management is why 8 years later we're still talking about what to do about Afghanistan. Don't you think a little actual intelligent and adult management is necessary so we can deal with this mess a little more effectively?
B) we've actually been involved for 30 years, starting in 1979 when Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul.
I suspect our history goes back even further than that, and while certainly relevant the truth is that it is only a small piece of the big picture. This is now, not then, and much has happened since then. But also much happened long before then. The region has a history in which lack of central governance and lack of foresight by invaders have left it more akin to the wild west than a country, and left invaders wishing they had just stayed out in the first place. Frankly, that isn't likely to be changing much in the near future no matter what the US does, nor much of what happens in the upcoming runoff elections.
Again, this is not something that it makes sense to simply "make a decision" for expediency. A thoughtful and intelligence decision that gives us the best chance at any kind of stability in the region, preferably without our troops being in harms way with no mission, is warranted.
Just because Obama is in office doesn't mean we are starting with Year Zero. Plus he's been in office for 8 months, surely there is a lot of information already collected.
Of course. And General McChrystal, the man put in place to assess the situation, has only recently provided his assessment. But it is the President who has the final decision, and his responsibility extends to the entire big picture, not just the military input from McChrystal. And that requires not only an assessment of that big picture, but also interactions with other relevant parties to ensure an appropriate response.
So waiting is good or bad?
That's not really a relevant question.
First, it was offered in response to my statement that the previous administration ignored calls for more troops for years, which is a documented fact. But we don't really know why the previous administration chose not to send more troops. Furthermore, conditions have changed since then, so new information must be incorporated into the thinking.
Second, and more importantly, the question implies that the current administration is "waiting." It isn't. The administration is actively analyzing the situation, actively evaluating potential options, and, in fact, actively working toward implementing solutions. I would be willing to bet that the decision is essentially already made, at least on the macro level, and that the administration is working on the details and implementing them. John Kerry's recent trip to Afghanistan was effectively to smooth the way for the runoff, which at least gives a chance at leading to greater legitimacy for the soon to be newly elected central government (keeping in mind that both the terms "legitimacy" and "central government" must be viewed in relative terms from an Afghani perspective). The presence of a semi-legitimate partner is essential to meeting any goals we want to meet. But that is just one piece of a very large puzzle. Other pieces include our troop strength (numbers, locations, mission, etc.), how we collaborate with native Afghani forces and police, interaction with neighbors, responses and attitudes of other influential players in the region (such as China and Russia), financial backing, etc.
So, bottom line is that we want there to be an intelligent and thoughtful decision-making process. It is the lack of such a process that got us into this mess, and acting without serious thought isn't going to get us out of it. And that isn't good for Afghanistan, for the world, and most certainly it isn't good for the US. Clear-thinking, and multidimensional-thinking, is exactly what we need, and what we are getting right now from our President.
I'm frustrated and angry. I work with families of military frequently and I hear their frustrations. Plus I can't help but think we are training and arming ANP and ANA and will turn around and have to fight them as enemies some day in the not too distant future. It seems to be a scenario that we keep repeating.
And General McChrystal, the man put in place to assess the situation, has only recently provided his assessment. But it is the President who has the final decision, and his responsibility extends to the entire big picture, not just the military input from McChrystal.
McChrystal's assessment has only recently been made official and public. His request for more troops is not new. This has been going on at the very least since early August or even longer. If they are placing more and more importance on training a large force for the ANA and the ANP, that will certainly affect the U.S. troop equation. But this isn't new either.
A thoughtful and intelligence decision that gives us the best chance at any kind of stability in the region, preferably without our troops being in harms way with no mission, is warranted.
Our troops will be in harms way no matter the decision. But a clearly defined mission will improve frustrations at the troop level. Thoughtful and intelligent decision is always desired. Let's up the administration is up for it. Only time will tell. And waiting too much time may not be in the best interests.
As are we all. After 8 years of mismanagement, it's time for a thoughtful and intelligent plan forward.
McChrystal's assessment has only recently been made official and public. His request for more troops is not new. This has been going on at the very least since early August or even longer.
On the relevant timescale, it is new. Very new. Plus all the other factors are also in play, something that wasn't adequately considered before.
Our troops will be in harms way no matter the decision.
As they have been for 8 very long mismanaged years. And we all want every single one of them back safe to their families. The current analysis is determining the best way to make that happen.
But a clearly defined mission will improve frustrations at the troop level. Thoughtful and intelligent decision is always desired. Let's up the administration is up for it. Only time will tell.
Yes, and we should all do our part to support our troops abroad and our families here. We must each insist on thorough, thoughtful, and informed decision-making that will best serve our troops by getting them home safely while meeting the appropriate mission goals. We're all in this together, and it is incumbent upon us to do it right for a change.
Thanks, David.
That's exactly what he did when?
The Iraq war was a mistake. Obama says Afghanistan is the real war on terrorism. Did he change his mind yet?
I'm sure he'll let you know if he does.
Another stupid war for warmongers so we can spend money we do not have on weapons we do not need, so that the ego of the imperialist can feel like we won....won what?
We are in a foreign country and they want us out.The place belongs to all the various tribes of Pashtun. ..called Taliban. The more you shoot them the angrier they get and more people get recruited....meanwhile the CIA drones is killing civilians....
Call us murderers not warriors. We lost 10.000 people in all since 9/11 and we killed 10 times as many between Iraq and Afghanistan, so who is the terrorist? they are or we are?
No to mentions the Trillions your grandchildren have to pay for the next 20 years.
And we're the bad guy?
It took me coming back to America to meet America's most dangerous foes.
Lea, why is it I always see this reference, yet there is no corresponding number of people killed by al Qaeda and the Taliban. How many have they killed? Any idea?
oh, as long as it doesn't affect your rights, hmmm .
Think of it, he could work here during the week and bring hope and change to Afghanistan on weekends . What a deal.
Tell us, Know-it-all, what should he have done already instead of taking so much time in long-overdue decision-making? What's the answer that's so obvious that no time is required to know?
First off, it has only been a short time since General McChrystal provided his assessment, so your timeframe of 8 months is more than a little disingenuous. It's really only been a matter of weeks. Secondly, there were calls for more troops that sat unheeded for years on the desks of the previous administration, so taking weeks to actually ask the right questions instead of ignoring the situation is more than appropriate.
This needs to be done intelligently, which is what the President is doing.
That is called leadership.
Ok, Great Idea. Here is a hoax for you.
Obama is sound thinker on foreign policy and is committed to the troops under his command. He is dripping with executive experience and military knowledge so he can easily ignore his hand-picked general in the field and take as much time as is needed (to pass health care) before making an Afghanistan decision.
Violence here or there is violence just the same.
If you really want to help women send them a goat, so they can have food and milk.
Western way of life is not better, an egalitarian society would be better.
They have to achieve their freedom on their own. At the moment we are creating rich crooks overthere while the poor remain poor.
The right of self determination is not an American invention.
For all the history majors in here, you still have not learned the basic. You do not invade other countries with some lame excuse you want to fix it while killing its people. Then we build buiding, then they blow them up.Way to go spending our tax money.
Taliban is not one group but many small groups all independent, now united against a common purpose, get the enemy out.
And they have nothing to do with 9/11....
War is wrong and no one wins.
I'm sorry that being honest isn't important to you. That speaks volumes.
Of course it's a foreign country, what kind statement is that?
They want us out? Who wants us out? Links please. I want to know where you get the idea that Afghans want us out.
The place belongs to all the various tribes of Pashtun. ..called Taliban.
Holy moly, what are we going to tell the Tajik, Hazara, Uzbek, Turkmen, Aimaq, Kirghiz, Wakhi, Farsiwan, Nuristani, Baluch, Brahui, Qizilbash, etc., that are in Afghanistan and aren't Pashtun???
The various tribes of Pashtun are not called Taliban. Taliban means "Students of Islamic Knowledge Movement" and they are mostly the mujahideen groups that formed during the Soviet war. The Taliban is made up mostly of Sunni Muslim Pashtuns. The tribes in the Northern Alliance are mostly Tajiks (Sunni), Hazara, Uzbeks (predominantly Sunni), and Turkmen (Sunni). The Hazara are Shia. The Shiite Ismailis also support the Northern Alliance.
Call us murderers not warriors. We lost 10.000 people in all since 9/11 and we killed 10 times as many between Iraq and Afghanistan, so who is the terrorist? they are or we are?
No, I'm not going to google it. You made the statement that we are murderers not warriors. You must have something to base this on besides a number from a website. Does your 10 times 10,000 number include car bombs, truck bombs, suicide bombers, etc., that detonated in markets? Mosques? The annihilation of Hazaras? Are they attributed to us or to "them?"
I do support:
1) Western way of life is not better, an egalitarian society would be better.
2) They have to achieve their freedom on their own.
3) At the moment we are creating rich crooks overthere while the poor remain poor.
However, the Taliban, while yes there are many groups all independent, they are not necessarily united. They have a common purpose but there is no organization or uniting on how to go about achieving that purpose. And that's the beauty of their method. There is no intention to have organization or coordination. If they did, they would be much easier to fight.
Do not see how the crooks can justify themselves after they have build up a trillion dollar plie of WMD they cannot use, meaning nuclear weapons.
And running the economy in to the ground. If you have any illusion about this country;s corrupt government and corrupt economic system then stop reading. The best man n the world cannot fight the web of lies that entangles everything in Washington. It is a losing proposition unless the people wake up and understand who is really running the government with the power of money....and the DOD of course and the CIA, all the good friends of Cheney and those who want be the leaders of the world.
See your thursday....
That's interesting Lea that you would feel comfortable in calling me brainwashed and to cue me on studying my history. I haven't stated any specific reasons on why we are there and I think I've just shown I know the history better than you.
Do you call people brainwashed just out of habit?
Considering our lack of money (national debt at $12 trillion and rising rapidly) we need to be asking serious questions:
-Why do we need 700 bases worldwide? Which ones can we close?
-As an empire, when will we realize that we have overextended ourselves, and that we need to contract?
-Which wars are most important?
-What business to we have interfering in other countries affairs?
-Why don't we follow the Constitution and have Congress declare war?
If we really belong in Afghanistan we've got to change our strategy and get and start winning. We can't stay there for 20 or 30 years.
Related info from NATO~
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8322486.stm
This is a real fork in the road. If we stay, we have to commit to a force level that can protect itself in remote areas. If we can't do that, we can try a "modified withdrawl" strategy, which will be like a slow-motion car crash. We cannot withdraw so easily, but it could be another thing that Obama "announces," with no idea of how he will do it.