30,000 troops are being deployed over the next 6 months.
Some generals estimate as many as 40,000 would be needed, and leading up to today, conservative commentators have been complaining again and again that Obama needs to stop "dithering." I haven't really gotten a chance to hear conservative responses to this announcement. I was wondering if anybody has.
I think this is a good decision, but at the same time Afghanistan and Iraq are very different circumstances. When the surge was sent to Iraq the Anbar Awakening was already taking place and Muqtadr Al Sadr was already trying to pacify his militias. The surge in conjunction with these developments was a sort of one two three punch.
While Afghanistan does not necessarily have these underlying developments, there also isn't a bitter sectarian conflict between Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds. There is of course conflict, duh? This isn't the first surge either, as Bush before leaving office sent 10,000 troops, and Obama sent 20,000ish back in March. But, this is certainly the largest, with as many as 34,000 going. These troops will all be withdrawn by July of 2011, meaning that 2010 is the linchpin year for Afghanistan, or at the very least has to be the beginning of the end.
I hope 2010 sees the spine of the Taliban insurgency broken, a tall order I know, but I also hope it sees further improvements in Iraq so that we can get out of both nations. As if that weren't enough to ask for, I also hope it demonstrates that Democrats don't "hate the troops" and that it's utterly ridiculous that anybody claims otherwise. Human nature doesn't change much, and I am sure if we do not succeed in Afghanistan the Republicans will clamor that it was because Obama a "Muslim sympathizer" didn't do what was necessary. But I hope not.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
They are already clamoring that, by setting the withdrawal date before we go, he is admitting defeat and declaring the day we'll surrender :/ *sigh*
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I posted elsewhere, giving a date for withdrawal sends the message to the Afghan people that we have no interest in occupying their country once it is not a threat to us. The Taliban gained power because they fought when the Soviet Union tried to conquer Afghanistan. And, of course, thanks to us.
A deadline also sends the message to our "allies" in the Afghan government that they can't lean on us forever and need to get their own act together.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I feel pretty similarly about this surge as I do the Iraq one. I'm glad we're honoring our responsibilities to the people there. I just really hope we're not throwing money and lives after a cause that is already lost.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hope the other countries of NATO can indeed do their part. It's been repeated over and over that Afghanistan is where "empires come to die"; a truly multi-national force is perhaps the best way of showing that the presence of troops in Afghanistan is not remotely empire-minded.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doubtful. Regardless of what Obama said, Europe has already more or less ruled out additional support. I think Germany okayed another 200 soldiers, saying another couple hundred are under review, but, nothing really useful.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
In actuality, it's fairly likely (certainly not guaranteed) that total international support for this surge will hit 40,000 troops, the 'magic number' initially asserted by Gen. Stanley McChrystal.
The 'counterpoint,' such as it is, is that apparently this 40,000 troop number only counts if they are all American troops. Now. Apparently. All the sudden.
Nevermind that Gen. Stanley McChrystal's current stance is that the Obama plan is sufficient.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Imagine for a moment what it would be like now if we had gotten all this done when we started instead of going off on a tragic misadventure in Iraq and leaving it on the back burner for 8 years. We likely could have captured bin Laden. The world was on our side instead of angry or frightened or disappointed in us.
We could have been out of there for years by now. Lots of people alive instead of dead. Billions of dollars we could have spent on other things...
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: ... a truly multi-national force is perhaps the best way of showing that the presence of troops in Afghanistan is not remotely empire-minded.
Ummmm, you might want to try a different line of reasoning
quote:Dear Sir/Madam/Canada/UK/Europe,
It has come to our attention that you think we're an empire in decline and kinda dangerous.
So to counteract this image, we would like you to become our flunkies. For the low price of supporting an unpopular war in your (and honestly, our) countries, you will have the opportunity to prove yourselves wrong about whether we're an empire, by standing (or rather, dying) next to us.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: You think we'll get 10,000 additional international troops by Spring?
Who do you think will step up to the plate?
We've already got 5,000 from NATO.
The rest will presumably come by allies who can be cajoled by the notion that they know that Pakistan:
1. has the bomb, and 2. is within a hair of actually collapsing.
Whether or not they think that winning Afghanistan is possible, they may want to see if the situation in Pakistan can be improved any through an extra two years in Afghanistan. Even if it is at the cost of soldiers' lives for the sake of what currently amounts to a feudal, installed kleptocracy.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: ... a truly multi-national force is perhaps the best way of showing that the presence of troops in Afghanistan is not remotely empire-minded.
Ummmm, you might want to try a different line of reasoning
Heh. Cute, but I was more concerned with what Afghan people will think of the occupiers. I hardly expect it will make our actual allies stop saying snarky things behind our back. I mean, why would they stop now?
Frankly, for all the saber-rattling rhetoric about "victory", I suspect we're probably going to have to dial our expectations back from whatever "new Middle Eastern bastion of democracy and civil rights" setting some might have envisioned to something more like "A class of warlords and drug dealers who only want to sell us drugs, not shelter terrorists and enrich uranium."
But whatever the game plan, it kind of has to start with the populace being fairly unified in not thinking of whatever government we support as The Enemy.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Um, Nato-Isaf is a coalition. The majority of the 5k "NATO" are American troops.
Stop it. Keep yourself in the other thread about the surge if you can't bother to get your facts straight. You just blatantly made this up and didn't do your homework, and are totally wrong.
quote:Anders Fogh Rasmussen said non-US Nato countries would provide at least 5,000 extra troops, and "probably a few thousand on top of that".
His pledge came as President Barack Obama said he would increase US forces in Afghanistan by 30,000 - to 100,000.
quote:"In 2010, the non-US members of this mission will send at least 5,000 soldiers and probably a few thousand on top of that," Mr Rasmussen said, clarifying that this number was in addition to the more than 38,000 already there.
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: ... I hardly expect it will make our actual allies stop saying snarky things behind our back. I mean, why would they stop now?
Oh, we'll try not to tell them until later then Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:As I posted elsewhere, giving a date for withdrawal sends the message to the Afghan people that we have no interest in occupying their country once it is not a threat to us. The Taliban gained power because they fought when the Soviet Union tried to conquer Afghanistan. And, of course, thanks to us.
How much does giving a tentative, flexible date to start the withdrawal actually send this message, though? Are they going to just take our word for it? That sort of trust isn't established by making promises for the future. How comforted are Afghans, really, by this new military strategy announcement? I don't know, but I suspect it's a much, much bigger reassurance domestically and in the West than it is in Afghanistan or throughout the Muslim world for that matter.
And, of course, the Taliban did not just gain power because they fought when the USSR invaded. Lots of groups fought. If that reasoning held true, the government would've looked quite different.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: As I posted elsewhere, giving a date for withdrawal sends the message to the Afghan people that we have no interest in occupying their country once it is not a threat to us. The Taliban gained power because they fought when the Soviet Union tried to conquer Afghanistan. And, of course, thanks to us.
A deadline also sends the message to our "allies" in the Afghan government that they can't lean on us forever and need to get their own act together.
Uumm, not to give offense but this is incorrect.
The Soviet Union did not try to "conquer" Afghanistan that is just effective US propaganda, the truth is the US sent aid and encouraged afghans to revolt in insurrection against the legitimate government of Afghanistan at the time which was obviously Pro-Soviet, provoking a Soviet response to intervene to prop it up.
Prior to that Afghanistan had significant ties to the Soviet Union since the 20's.
IP: Logged |
posted
The initial sending of troops in definitely lined up like that.
However, when the government changed (yes, I know, by coup; that isn't very relevant), the USSR took over the Afghani government and took control of Afghanistan's domestic and foreign policy, a move not at all supported by Afghan or international law.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes yes, empires invading random Middle East countries in defiance of international law is bad.
Let's not overlook that kmbboots' main point that the Soviet and American invasions would have went much better if they set an end date.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne, what color is the sky on the world where you are a neutral observer when it comes to things dealing with communism, particularly Soviet and Chinese communism?
C'mon, man. Surely you at least recognize you're not a neutral observer.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Blayne, what color is the sky on the world where you are a neutral observer when it comes to things dealing with communism, particularly Soviet and Chinese communism?
posted
My phrase "Soviet Union tried to conquer Afghanistan" was not precise. I was coming from the perspective of those who would resist occupation from either the former Societ Union or from us. From their perspective, they were fighting against people trying to "conquer" them, just as some of them are fighting against us now.* Making it as clear as possible to whoever will believe it that we do not want to stay there is a positive.
*Others, I am sure, have other motives that are not so noble.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
You may be happy with NATO or UN troops taking over. Frees the US of political responsibility despite the fact that the vast majority of UN and NATO troops are US soldiers.
Reminds me of the counter-narcotics interdiction operations I did around Columbia in the late 1990's. Under international law, only Coast Guard had authority to board in international waters. I was on a Navy destroyer with a crew of 300. The CG compliment of 4 would take command five minutes before boarding the suspect boat. We'd raise the Coast Guard flag on the destroyer and we were no longer navy. Navy Captain relinquishes command to Coast Guard officer for legal loophole.
IE: raising a Coast Guard flag on a Navy Destroyer = Nato taking over for the current coalition.....same players, different flag. Makes plenty of sense to the lawyers in charge and their ignorant followers. Labels change, reality remains the same. "International" forces are not necessarily replacements.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, that has pretty much literally nothing to do with this issue.
Besides, if for some inconceivable reason the fact was not that these were non-US troops just 'going' as NATO troops, it would still effectively increase the troop count to 35,000.
So it's a remarkably moot point and a distraction at best.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Blayne, what color is the sky on the world where you are a neutral observer when it comes to things dealing with communism, particularly Soviet and Chinese communism?
C'mon, man. Surely you at least recognize you're not a neutral observer.
I'm Canadian so my view on American actions is inherently more neutral then that of Americans.
IP: Logged |
posted
You're not neutral. Your bias actually runs deeper than quite a few americans here.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I don't think I'm in any danger of that being close to truth for as long as you continue to deny American role in provoking the conflict.
IP: Logged |
posted
Non-US nations in NATO commit to sending 7,000 more troops "with more to come..." to assist the US surge.
That brings the surge projection to a bit more than 37,000 troops. That's only 3,000 shy of McChrystal's most conservative estimate. I think the president has essentially done what he needed to do, the rest is up to our troops, NATO's troops, and more importantly the Afghan people.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
