Obama escalates the war in Afghanistan

[Jdarg]

it's an occupation more than a war

Somebody please remind me why we bailed out of Afghanistan- after going in to go after the Taliban after 9/11. Why did they get the back burner?

 

[Bob]

Somebody please remind me why we bailed out of Afghanistan- after going in to go after the Taliban after 9/11. Why did they get the back burner?

there was money to make and revenge to be had

 

[poppy]

Thanks for starting this thread, 30A. I was going to myself this morning and got tied up.

I spent a great deal of time at West Point in my younger days when you could freely walk around, pre 9/11. The cadets are serious most times, especially when uniformed and in ceremony. But, also, you have to consider the subject and I do not think it would have been appropriate to show any kind of emotion after an address about continuing war. I did notice some looked like they were falling asleep. They must have had a long day. The Route towards West Point and bridges were all backed up yesterday and secured.

I was hoping that Obama would give me reason to feel more comfortable with his decision. Short of supposed terrorist threats and a more concentrated effort in certain regions, I was not convinced that this is the right strategy, not to mention the costs of an additional 30 Billion dollars in dire times as it is. Obama stated this was an international effort, and I wish he had been more specific about that-- who, how many- resources expended-- He gave a timeline of 18 months and I simply can not see how anything can be accomplished in such a short time, and the Taliban now knows this and will most likely hang low for a while. We're dealing with a corrupt government, (Karzai's brother has been linked more times to the drug trade than can be counted and this extends to all branches of government. 95% of the world's heroin supply comes from Afghanistan) We're dealing with religious zealotry, rough terrain, and their own form of justice there which has been happening longer than any of us have been around. I also have read that the Afghan's and Pakistani's have become more sympathetic to the Taliban offering them safe haven; much more so than in the past, which is why we are losing this fight big time, so Obama stating the Afghani people need us was not entirely true.

Maybe one of y'all can offer a better argument pro-surge. But, right now, this isn't sitting well with me.

Maybe since US troops have been fighting and dying in Afghanistan for the last eight years the President is sending a message to Karzai and the Afgan people that they have another eighteen months to get their act together then it's their turn. Nine and one half years is a long enough time for our soldiers to help them learn to fight for their own country. If we leave it open ended they will just lets our troops continue to do the fighting and have no real incentive to completely take over .

 

[scooterbug44]

A significant percentage of the "new" troops aren't being sent there to fight, they are being sent there to teach others how to fight and to provide essential services to rebuild the country.

‘Three Cups of Tea’ advice for Obama - Giving- msnbc.com

"I think our government has done a poor job telling the public that about a third to half of those troops Obama is sending over are trainer troops. Of the 22,000 troops announced in February, 8,000 of those are trainer troops ? from the National Guard and reservists. They?re teachers and engineers, bankers, dentists, horticulturalists, civil engineers and veterans. And roughly about a third or more of the new 30,000 troops he is sending will be trainer troops.

This is in line with what the shura have been saying for years ? that they don?t need firepower but brainpower. They say, 'We want you to help us out but we don?t need help to go fight the Taliban or to kill and capture al-Qaida, but we do need some help to get us on our feet again so if you want to send over some of your special soldiers, like veterinarians and doctors and dentists and nurses, we?d love to have those come over. But if you?re just going to send over troops for fighting, then we don?t want those, we don?t really need those troops.' That?s what the shura are telling McChrystal when I?ve heard him talking to them.

Some of the things the elders will talk about that you don?t hear about in the public are, for example, that in 2000, there were 800,000 kids in school in Afghanistan, and this was during the height of the Taliban. The kids were nearly all boys. Today, there are 8.4 million children in school in Afghanistan, including 2.5 million females. So it?s the greatest increase in school enrollment in any country in modern history and the goal is 13 million. So what I?m saying is that there are some really good things happening in Afghanistan, as well. There?s also a central banking system now in Afghanistan that wasn?t there and which was put in in 2006. That?s had a huge impact on the country. There also is an Eisenhower-era road-building program so the roads are about 60 percent done. ...

You can?t plug in a democracy; you have to build one. The real key is not only education but also land ownership. You go into the district courts now in Afghanistan and it?s mind-boggling how many women are going in and filing their titles for land ownership. I just try to tell people that yes, there are a lot of bad things happening and it?s very frightening but there are also some very amazing things going on and pretty much this all happened at a time when we put Afghanistan on the back seat. Just imagine what could happen if we devoted serious effort over the next two to four years to help the people of Afghanistan."

 

[tailwagger]

I always like the Westpoint Addresses; however, I noticed (at the end) not one Cadet was smiling for this Address.

I could tell from their body language they thought the speech was too stiff.

hoo boy

 

[Gidget]

?Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.? - General Dwight D. Eisenhower.

I'm not thrilled about the escalation.

G

 

[AlphaCrab]

Our war in Afphganistan is like the adoption of a special needs child by unemployed parents.

 

[traderx]

Maybe since US troops have been fighting and dying in Afghanistan for the last eight years the President is sending a message to Karzai and the Afgan people that they have another eighteen months to get their act together then it's their turn. Nine and one half years is a long enough time for our soldiers to help them learn to fight for their own country. If we leave it open ended they will just lets our troops continue to do the fighting and have no real incentive to completely take over .

Poppy, this makes sense to me.

I worry that the pretext for the surge is the successful surge in Iraq but foreign troops in Afghanistan have not had an easy time of it. Obama inherited this war and undoubtedly he is doing what he thinks best. I hope it works out and then we get our collective behinds out of there.

 

[Mango]

A significant percentage of the "new" troops aren't being sent there to fight, they are being sent there to teach others how to fight and to provide essential services to rebuild the country.

?€˜Three Cups of Tea?€™ advice for Obama - Giving- msnbc.com

"I think our government has done a poor job telling the public that about a third to half of those troops Obama is sending over are trainer troops. Of the 22,000 troops announced in February, 8,000 of those are trainer troops — from the National Guard and reservists. They’re teachers and engineers, bankers, dentists, horticulturalists, civil engineers and veterans. And roughly about a third or more of the new 30,000 troops he is sending will be trainer troops.

This is in line with what the shura have been saying for years — that they don’t need firepower but brainpower. They say, 'We want you to help us out but we don’t need help to go fight the Taliban or to kill and capture al-Qaida, but we do need some help to get us on our feet again so if you want to send over some of your special soldiers, like veterinarians and doctors and dentists and nurses, we’d love to have those come over. But if you’re just going to send over troops for fighting, then we don’t want those, we don’t really need those troops.' That’s what the shura are telling McChrystal when I’ve heard him talking to them.

Some of the things the elders will talk about that you don’t hear about in the public are, for example, that in 2000, there were 800,000 kids in school in Afghanistan, and this was during the height of the Taliban. The kids were nearly all boys. Today, there are 8.4 million children in school in Afghanistan, including 2.5 million females. So it’s the greatest increase in school enrollment in any country in modern history and the goal is 13 million. So what I’m saying is that there are some really good things happening in Afghanistan, as well. There’s also a central banking system now in Afghanistan that wasn’t there and which was put in in 2006. That’s had a huge impact on the country. There also is an Eisenhower-era road-building program so the roads are about 60 percent done. ...

You can’t plug in a democracy; you have to build one. The real key is not only education but also land ownership. You go into the district courts now in Afghanistan and it’s mind-boggling how many women are going in and filing their titles for land ownership. I just try to tell people that yes, there are a lot of bad things happening and it’s very frightening but there are also some very amazing things going on and pretty much this all happened at a time when we put Afghanistan on the back seat. Just imagine what could happen if we devoted serious effort over the next two to four years to help the people of Afghanistan."

Wow, while our own infrastructure is collapsing, we are rebuilding theirs. How nice of us. I suppose it has nothing to do with the fact that the roads to get to oil field, gas deposits, and coal are practically nil not having anything to do with it; or that it is critical for the new government to have a functioning infrastructure for their economic development and to increase power. However, as I stated earlier, between civil unrest and corruption, what's not to say that these infrastructure improvements will not be destroyed again?
I don't, however, take issue with providing funding or US citizens for educational purposes.

Maybe since US troops have been fighting and dying in Afghanistan for the last eight years the President is sending a message to Karzai and the Afgan people that they have another eighteen months to get their act together then it's their turn. Nine and one half years is a long enough time for our soldiers to help them learn to fight for their own country. If we leave it open ended they will just lets our troops continue to do the fighting and have no real incentive to completely take over .

Poppy, if you look at the history of Afghanistan since at least the 20's, between invasion and civil unrest and the fight for power in their Country, some governments come out with all the democratic guns fighting, make some headway, then are overthrown. What makes this time any different?

Like Bob said above, Obama bought himself an out. It would look weak for us to withdraw at this time.

 

[scooterbug44]

Maybe since US troops have been fighting and dying in Afghanistan for the last eight years the President is sending a message to Karzai and the Afgan people that they have another eighteen months to get their act together then it's their turn. Nine and one half years is a long enough time for our soldiers to help them learn to fight for their own country. If we leave it open ended they will just lets our troops continue to do the fighting and have no real incentive to completely take over .

The reason for the deadline is that the US is going to withdraw, but the Afghan troops and NATO troops will stay and increase their presence.

NATO to add 7,000 troops to Afghan effort - Afghanistan- msnbc.com

"BRUSSELS - Some two dozen countries will send an estimated 7,000 more troops to Afghanistan next year, the chief of NATO said Friday as U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told her allied counterparts that an infusion of forces is crucial to turning the tide in the long war.

NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen of Denmark told reporters at NATO headquarters that at least 25 nations would provide the additional forces in Afghanistan in 2010, "with more to come." And he said the 44 countries now involved are "absolutely united" in their commitment to seeing the eight-year war through to a successful outcome.

There are now about 38,000 non-U.S. foreign troops in Afghanistan, along with some 70,000 U.S. troops. The additional U.S. troops to be sent by Obama and the foreign commitments cited by Fogh Rasmussen would take the overall total to about 145,000 by the end of next year.The Afghan national army now has about 97,000 soldiers and is scheduled to grow to 134,000 by next October."