|
|
Post by kitkat on Nov 24, 2009 11:41:58 GMT -5
Barack Obama is expected to send 34,000 more US troops to Afghanistan when he unveils his long-awaited strategy for the Afghan conflict next Tuesday, US media reports said today.
It splits the difference between two other McChrystal options – a "high-risk" approach calling for 20,000 additional troops and a "medium-risk" option that would add 40,000 to 45,000.--Guardian, today
Well, what can i say? (Except TOLDYASO!)
Lyndon Baines Obama is born... ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by grumpytoo on Nov 24, 2009 11:59:10 GMT -5
I'll have to wait on what else is in the decision, but if that is it I will be sorely disappointed. More of the same is not the solution, but more troops with some kind of policy shift may be. What that shift would be is beyond me. I just don't see a "winning" situation there.
--chris
|
|
|
|
Post by arozanski on Nov 24, 2009 12:02:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by rocky4948 on Nov 24, 2009 12:15:22 GMT -5
Viet Nam all over again.
|
|
|
|
Post by flylooper on Nov 24, 2009 13:21:45 GMT -5
Obama is supposed to be scheduled to address the nation next week after his decision is made public tomorrow. Let's just wait to see what he has to say.
Preliminarily, I'm disappointed. This thing now becomes Obama's war, 100%. Clearly, he's caught between a rock and a hard place. The choice, no matter which, is a loser politically. Get out and he's seen as weak and the country is seen as a paper tiger. Escalate, and he's wades in deeper into the quicksand.
There is one possible bright spot: The strategy of clear and hold and trying to create safe villages and denying safe haven to the Taliban is not unlike the strategy used in Vietnam after Westmoreland was replaced by Creighton Abrams. Some still argue that we might have been successful in VN had we stayed in and supported the So. Vietnamese military. But when Kissinger in negotiations allowed the North Vietnamese army to keep 54,000 troops in the South while at the same time removing American air support, SoVN's fate was sealed. In fact, Abrams went to his grave believing we abandoned a winning strategy in Vietnam.
But aside the the military aspect of it, there are political realities which compare in both cases. In Vietnam, the govt there was totally corrupt under Nguyen Cao Ky, as is Hamid Karzai's (but even worse than in VN!). No one in Afghanistan has even a sliver of belief that Karzai is much more than the mayor of Kabul.
I think Obama will pretty much tell us that he's sending in more people but that all bets will be off if the Karzai govt doesn't clean up its act - like right now! Without a viable government, nothing changes.
I doubt Karzai will straighten up. Rather, he'll ship cash to Switzerland, just like all those Vietnamese politicos did ,and just jump on a plane for Zurich or something when the time comes.
|
|
|
|
Post by bizarro on Nov 24, 2009 13:23:42 GMT -5
Interesting article in the NYT on Sunday. There are apparently a number of local militias who've been fighting the Taliban on their own and it sounds like we're actively courting and supporting them now. Could be a way forward.
|
|
|
|
Post by arozanski on Nov 24, 2009 13:25:05 GMT -5
Interesting article in the NYT on Sunday. There are apparently a number of local militias who've been fighting the Taliban on their own and it sounds like we're actively courting and supporting them now. Could be a way forward. Sounds familiar somehow... |
|
|
|
Post by grumpytoo on Nov 24, 2009 13:51:29 GMT -5
Interesting article in the NYT on Sunday. There are apparently a number of local militias who've been fighting the Taliban on their own and it sounds like we're actively courting and supporting them now. Could be a way forward. Sounds familiar somehow... I think they all, the Afghanastans, will be happy to use us for their own ends. I don't think their ends bare any relationship to ours as far as type of government. What this could possible do is give our politicos cover. Have a new side, beat, or appear to beat, the Taliban. Declare victory, get out. Yea we won! Karzi out, taliban out, US out. --chris |
|
|
|
Post by rocky4948 on Nov 24, 2009 14:10:04 GMT -5
Sounds familiar somehow... Yea we won! Karzi out, taliban out, US out. --chris And many many dead US soldiers. |
|
|
|
Post by arozanski on Nov 24, 2009 14:42:09 GMT -5
Sounds familiar somehow... I think they all, the Afghanastans, will be happy to use us for their own ends. I don't think their ends bare any relationship to ours as far as type of government. What this could possible do is give our politicos cover. Have a new side, beat, or appear to beat, the Taliban. Declare victory, get out. Yea we won! Karzi out, taliban out, US out. --chris Not sure if you got what I was referring to - the fight against the Russians, back in the 70's/80's? We happened to back a certain tribal group to help drive out the Russians... |
|
|
|
Post by bizarro on Nov 24, 2009 14:52:59 GMT -5
I got it, and I also see parallels to the use of the tribal militias in Iraq. It could work, it could also be a disaster.
|
|
|
|
Post by grumpytoo on Nov 24, 2009 17:59:40 GMT -5
I think they all, the Afghanastans, will be happy to use us for their own ends. I don't think their ends bare any relationship to ours as far as type of government. What this could possible do is give our politicos cover. Have a new side, beat, or appear to beat, the Taliban. Declare victory, get out. Yea we won! Karzi out, taliban out, US out. --chris Not sure if you got what I was referring to - the fight against the Russians, back in the 70's/80's? We happened to back a certain tribal group to help drive out the Russians... I got the reference. I just think that while we all think we are using the tribes for our purposes, you might consider they are using us for their purposes. Those purposes are probably not the same. Just consider us a resource in the ongoing tribal battles. As we would just as soon they went away when we are done, they may think the same. --chris |
|
|
|
Post by will on Nov 24, 2009 18:34:53 GMT -5
It will all depend upon whether we are better at the great game than the British were.
|
|
|
|
Post by arozanski on Nov 25, 2009 6:09:05 GMT -5
Not sure if you got what I was referring to - the fight against the Russians, back in the 70's/80's? We happened to back a certain tribal group to help drive out the Russians... I got the reference. I just think that while we all think we are using the tribes for our purposes, you might consider they are using us for their purposes. Those purposes are probably not the same. Just consider us a resource in the ongoing tribal battles. As we would just as soon they went away when we are done, they may think the same. --chris Gotcha. Anyone that thinks tribal groups/foreign governments simply welcome the US with open arms because of our bountiful munificence needs their head examined. When you encounter an advantage (such as US military might and expertise), you use it to your benefit, not the US's. That seems to be basic Human 101. |
|
|
|
Post by kitkat on Nov 25, 2009 11:01:32 GMT -5
It's all sorta interesting...now we get to see how the US Indian Wars would have turned out--if the indians weren't in the stone age-- and the US Army can't use genocide and concentration camps on a wholesale level. Kind of like if the Lt. of Dances with Wolves was in change... ;D
|
|
