More Troops in Afghanistan?
| Thu Jul. 30, 2009 10:05 PM PDT
The Washington Post reports that the top commander in Afghanistan is preparing recommendations for a new strategic direction:
Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who took charge of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan last month, appears inclined to request an increase in American troops to implement the new strategy, which aims to use more unconventional methods to combat the growing Taliban insurgency, according to members of an advisory group he convened to work on the assessment. Such a request could receive a chilly reception at the White House, where some members of President Obama's national security team have expressed reluctance about authorizing any more deployments.
...."There was a very broad consensus on the part of the assessment team that the effort is under-resourced and will require additional resources to get the job done," a senior military official in Kabul said.
....One senior administration official said some members of Obama's national security team want to see how McChrystal uses the 21,000 additional troops before any more deployments are authorized. "It'll be a tough sell," the official said.
Well, this should be a tough sell. If McChrystal can make his case, fine. But it better be a damn good one.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Comments
"...and Eastasia has never
Submitted by Got Change on Fri Jul. 31, 2009 2:57 AM PDT.
"...and Eastasia has never been at war with Oceania, Winston!"
Resource dump in a strategic wasteland
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri Jul. 31, 2009 4:33 AM PDT.
...."There was a very broad consensus on the part of the assessment team that the effort is under-resourced and will require additional resources to get the job done," a senior military official in Kabul said.
That senior military official didn't happen to specify what the job was and what resources would be required? What are we doing to and in Afghanistan? The resource requirements will likely rival those that guaranteed our success in Vietnam.
Lyndon Johnson Told the
Submitted by Neal (not verified) on Fri Jul. 31, 2009 4:35 AM PDT.
Lyndon Johnson Told the Nation
Words and Music by Tom Paxton
I got a letter from L. B. J.
It said this is your lucky day.
It's time to put your khaki trousers on.
Though it may seem very queer
We've got no jobs to give you here
So we are sending you to Viet Nam
[Cho:]
Lyndon Johnson told the nation,
"Have no fear of escalation.
I am trying everyone to please.
Though it isn't really war,
We're sending fifty thousand more,
To help save Viet nam from Viet Namese."
I jumped off the old troop ship,
And sank in mud up to my hips.
I cussed until the captain called me down.
Never mind how hard it's raining,
Think of all the ground we're gaining,
Just don't take one step outside of town.
[Cho:]
Every night the local gentry,
Sneak out past the sleeping sentry.
They go to join the old VC.
In their nightly little dramas,
They put on their black pajamas,
And come lobbing mortar shells at me.
[Cho:]
We go round in helicopters,
Like a bunch of big grasshoppers,
Searching for the Viet Cong in vain.
They left a note that they had gone.
They had to get down to Saigon,
Their government positions to maintain.
[Cho:]
Well here I sit in this rice paddy,
Wondering about Big Daddy,
And I know that Lyndon loves me so.
Yet how sadly I remember,
Way back yonder in November,
When he said I'd never have to go.
'Well, this should be a
Submitted by Chicounsel (not verified) on Fri Jul. 31, 2009 7:04 AM PDT.
'Well, this should be a tough sell. If McChrystal can make his case, fine. But it better be a damn good one."
Why the need to sell this? Obama has said that Afganistan was where the REAL WAR ON TERRORISTS was being fought and that Bush's shift to Iraq was a mistake. If the commander on the ground says he needs more troops to win there, the only response from Obama should be "Whatever you need!!" That's the response Bush would have given.
If liberals and Obama bail on Afganistan and it ends up in a worse state than Iraq, then you'll never be entrusted with US national security again.
what's changed?
Submitted by junebug on Fri Jul. 31, 2009 8:48 AM PDT.
I'm agnostic as to whether or not more troops are necessary, but it's interesting that the conventional wisdom among strategists, when we were nuts-deep in Iraq, was that the only way to succeed was with more troops on the ground. Bush, Cheney, & Rumsfeld were rightly pilloried for, among other things, trying to pull off regime change on the cheap, but now the Obama administration expects to succeed against a more seasoned enemy in Afghanistan with just a fraction of the troops we had in Iraq, and in an arguably more lawless atmosphere with even greater geographical challenges. As I said, I don't pretend to know whether or not more troops would do the trick in Afghanistan, but it seems odd to suggest that fewer troops is the right answer this time.
Second essential problem
Submitted by compiknews on Sun Oct. 25, 2009 8:35 AM PDT.
Second essential problem that girls russian dating com may run into by going to another country is surely - relationship with their future spouses. According to the data russian women dating service great amount of the guys, wishing to marry Russian women are over forty years and still incapable to buy a house or to succeed in life single russian women. They predominantly consider that the women from such economically poor state will not have great requirements and therefore will be ideal for the marriage. Shocking is the fact that more and more criminal cases, which happen in America, dating russian girls as well as in other states are connected with the abuse of the foreign brides. Part dating russian bride of them are beaten or even murdered. Such cases about unsuccessful wedlock become often printed in the newspapers in foreign countries, like America, and in russian dating services. Lately, Washington, D. C accepted a law, in compliance with which russian dating bride are obliged to inform possible foreign girls of the former convictions or failed experiences with outland wives of the man, whom the russian women dating single russian is about to wed. This is done, as the measure of avoidance of the criminal cases, occurred with such scaring frequency.
Second essential difficulty that ladies russian dating website can run into by going abroad is of course - relationship with their future spouses. According to the statistic Hot Russian girls big part of the men, willing to tie a knot with Russian women are over forty years and still incapable to buy a dwelling or to achieve something in life russian dating tour. They predominantly think that the girls from such economically poor state will not have big expectations and therefore will be ideal for the marriage. Alarming is the fact that ever more criminal cases, which happen in America, anastasia russian dating and in other countries are connected with the attacks on the foreign brides. Part russian dating bride of them are beaten or even murdered. Such cases about unsuccessful wedlock become frequently printed in the newspapers abroad by such countries, like America, and in dating free girl russian. Lately, Washington, D. C admitted a law, according to which russian dating sites are obliged to notify possible outland brides of the existing convictions or unsuccessful experiences with outland wives of the man, whom the russian dating ladies is about to wed. This is done, as the mean of avoidance of the criminal events, happened with such scaring frequency.
Let's see...does this
Submitted by Luther on Fri Jul. 31, 2009 8:53 AM PDT.
Let's see...does this satisfy the Powell Doctrine?
Powell Doctrine
1. Military action should be used only as a last resort and only if there is a clear risk to national security by the intended target.
2. The force, when used, should be overwhelming and disproportionate to the force used by the enemy.
3. There must be strong support for the campaign by the general public.
4. There must be a clear exit strategy from the conflict in which the military is engaged.
Nope, looks like another Vietnam or Iraq.
Interesting comments. I
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat Aug. 1, 2009 1:07 AM PDT.
Interesting comments.
I agree Iraq was not the problem, in fact, kept Iran in check.
Afghanistan may now be the problem because of Pakistan, which has nukes.
That being said, I think the US is not up for more war. We don't have the money. We're sick of it all. I DO think it will be a tough sell, as it should be.
Here we go again ...
Submitted by janinsanfran on Sat Aug. 1, 2009 10:03 AM PDT.
No discernible mission. Locals and U.S. troops die in larger and larger numbers. Allies want out and gradually pull back -- their people say WTF is this for?
Finally Americans say WTF is this for?
Another President's lofty visions trickle down the toilet.
i guess you should take your
Submitted by psycholog online (not verified) on Wed Aug. 5, 2009 3:33 PM PDT.
i guess you should take your troops back to your country and stop all these wars! U.S. is fighting for freedom and peace by starting another wars all over again?? want to show you love and peace is here fotografia slubna
Troops Doubled
Submitted by Nader Paul Kucinich Gravel (not verified) on Thu Aug. 6, 2009 8:10 AM PDT.
Poppies & Pipelines
McChrystal & Pat Tillman
Afghanistan: Graveyard of Empires
DNC & RNC have BOTH sold out the country in order to enrich themselves.
Independents agree on more than we disagree.
Beware the divide and conquer.
Future of a Nation that can not trust the Government & Propaganda Media?
How many times has the Government & Propaganda Media lied to you?
Chronic lying as career path or intellectual prostitution for paycheck?
Gravel Kucinich Paul Nader McKinney Ventura Sheehan Kaptur.
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
Poodles, Puppets, Sham debates, Scam elections.
9/11 liars, AIPAC liars, Federal Reserve liars.
Speak no evil, hear no evil, see no evil?
perotcharts.com
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
