Military and White House at odds over Afghanistan

So is this just Fox News, being Fox News, or is the Obama Administration really completely paralyzed over what to do in Afghanistan?

Delay appears as indecision in this sort of thing, and indecision is a huge sign of weakness to folks like Ahmnejedhanad, Hugo, and Lil' Kim.

Yeah, from other articles I've read it sounds to me like he's more concerned with keeping the Democrats happy than he is with doing the right thing.

What a surprise.

Meh, it's been 8 years. I'm willing to wait a week or two as long as this is an honest deliberation of the facts on the ground (which I believe point to increasing troop levels) and not just a political ploy.

If he was an honest politician, we'd have the Afghan Surge by now. Unfortunately, Obamassiah was busy with the Olympics. The man has no interest in winning the war, he just doesn't want to pull out and look weak. So the troops will languish while Obama works on other issues.
If only the millitary were really allowed to fight rather than be at the mercy of politicians with no interest in their success...

Just to put a little perspective on things, Bush was warned BEFORE THE WAR STARTED that we needed more troops from Iraq.

What did he do when his Chief of Staff of the Army told him that before the war?

He fired him.

What did he do when his Secretary of State, ex Chairman of the Joint Chiefs told him that?

He sidelined him.

What did he do when his commander in Iraq, Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni told him that after the invasion?

He ignored him.

Bush was being told FOR YEARS that we needed more troops, but it took him being a lame duck and his party getting totally trounced in midterms (and thus he having totally nothing at all to lose) for him to do the right thing.


I think we can give Obama a couple weeks.

President Bush can be excused for ignoring Colin Powell regarding Iraq.

Powell at the Pentagon was one of the infamous generals who it was said whenever the administration wanted to use military force somewhere would say to the effect

"the answer is 6 months and 500,000 troops, what is your question?"

It is clear to me that whether President Obama approves more troops for Afghanistan depends on whether he gets a Health Care bill passed.

If he does, then he will go ahead and approve more troops.

But if he doesn't, his administration will have NOTHING they can show they've done for the American left.

So he'll tap down U.S. involvement in Afghanistan as a sop to the left.

Well, it looks like Afghanistan is fucked:

IMO this is the worst possible solution, compounded.

Either you do the Surge 2.0 and put this to bed or you get out. But to send in piecemeal stopgap measures is just a way to waste money, lives, and resources.

And then they compound it by offering to appease the Taliban. The Taliban had their chance in 2001. They told us F-U. We, in turn said No. F-U and removed them from power. Now we're apparently going to backtrack on it and allow savages who murdered women and destroyed priceless artwork in the name of Allah back into a position of respect.

Further down in the article, it talks about how the general on the ground, General McChrystal is in favor of a surge of 40,000 troops while Biden is in favor of Bubba counterterrorism--hunker down and pop missile potshots at terrorists.

I'd be worried, except that Biden has a long and distinguished military career, is an expert on military strategy and foreign policy, and has a reputation for excellent judgement.

Oh. Wait...

But hey, let's look at the bright side. While we dither and fritter away Afghanistan and important progress in fighting terrorism, at least Obama's involvement brought Chicago the Olympics.

...Oh. Wait.

The Barry way. Surrender. He would be the pride of the French military. 8 years 700+ American lives just to give it all back to the Taliban. The victims of 9/11 must be twisting in their graves.

Nope. The Afghan government wants to negotiate with the Taliban. It makes sense, since neither side has ever been able to control the country entirely.

If that's what the Afghan people want, who are we to argue?

Why? The Taliban didn't kill anyone on 9/11, AQ did. American forces are still going after AQ.

If the victims of 9/11 are twisting in their graves, it's because Bush wasted time, money and lives going into Iraq instead of hunting down bin Laden.

1) See my post above, the one only Dayton had the balls to respond to. This has not been decided yet.

2) Don't know if you are just playing the retard for effect or you really believe it, but for the last few years now US policy has been to bring moderate Taleb into the Afghan government. Bush even gave safe passage to some of their leadership, allowing them to fly to Saudi Arabia for negotiations with the Afghan government. This is what we did in Iraq to such great effect, buy off those we can, so that we can isolate AQ and destroy them.


3) And fuck you and your comments about the French, at various times they have been second only to the US in terms of troop commitments to ISAF, and also are one of the few allied nations to allow their troops to be used offensively. Which is one of the reasons they are 5th in terms of casualties.

I realize French bashing is in vogue, but this is not the thread for it.

^and the Taliban have been gaining in power influence and violence over the last 3 or so years. Appeasement doesn't work with fundies and by it's very nature the Taliban is fundie. I know it's hard for people to grasp, but that doesn't make it any less true.

There has been no such thing as 'The Taliban' since the U.S. Invasion. There has only been a loose collection of warlords many of which have shifted sides over the years and/or gone neutral, some multiple times.

The fact that you don't get that tells me you have no knowledge whatsoever of what is going on over there.

Ex-Pakistani President Musharif had some interesting comments on that in the middle of his interview today:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113610051&ft=1&f=1004

(just an overview at the link, gonna have to wait for audio and transcript)

Really, then why is Barry "inviting" them to join the government if they don't exist.

He is inviting 'elements' of the Taleban to join the government.

Check out pages 2-6 through 2-9 of General McChrystal's report for more information on the fractured nature of what is called 'The Taleban' in the West.

McChyrstal's recommendations for Reconciliation and Re-Integration can be found on 2-13

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-...sment_Redacted_092109.pdf?sid=ST2009092003140

(Sorry, it just a scanned image of the leaked report, so I can't cut and paste the relevant sections, but if you actually check it out you will see you are dead wrong.)

Well if the US isn't willing to commit the troops necessary to WIN, and not just keep the Taliban at bay, I say there is no reason for Canadian boys to still be in Afghanistan. Bring them home.

I don't give a fuck anymore.

Actually no you are. Reading pages 2-5 and on indicate a strong Taliban presence with 3 different groups somewhat controlled by leaders in Pakistan. Mullah Omar, the former leader of the country runs the largest and most powerful of them. They are a major threat and their influence is increasing. They are well organized and they are making gains, not losses.

Tell me what I said that was wrong?

I never claimed that they were getting weaker, so that is irrelevant, and now it seems you agree that there are at least three major umbrella groups (as well as multiple smaller ones), and not a unified 'Taleban' so what exactly am I wrong about?

Make baba a general and I will use a zerg rush strategy using South Korean army to solve aghanistan taliban problem. South korean troops would best know how to implement a Zerg rush strategy.

There is still very much a Taliban under Omar. There may be other groups vying for power and attempting their own chaos, but the group remains alive and well. You claimed it was gone. The group may spilt up for this kind of warfare but they are not completely separate entities as the General's own report states.

Can you not read?!


The major insurgent groups in order of their threat to the mission are: the Quetta Shura Taliban (QST), the Haqqani Network (HQN), and the Hezb-e Islami Gulbuddin (HiG). These groups coordinate activities loosely, often achieving significant unity of purpose and even some unity of effort, but they do not share a formal command-and-control structure. They also do not have a single overarching strategy or campaign plan. Each individual group, however, has a specific strategy, develops annual plans, and allocates resources accordingly. Each group has its own methods of developing and executing these plans and each has adapted over time. Despite the best efforts of GIRoA and ISAF, the insurgents currently have the initiative.



There is no unifed 'Taleban' although Western media and even politicians like to lump all insurgent groups under that umbrella term. There are three major groups each with their own motivations, and command structure. There are also groups within the groups (Afghanistan is still a feudal country, each warlord of an area commands his own fighters) as well as many other smaller groups (notice he says three 'major' insurgent groups).

Both Bush and Obama recognize that driving these divergent groups apart is the path to success.

Why are you argueing against this?!?! It is what worked in Iraq and if we hope to win Afghanistan it will have to part of our plan.

Re-integration and Reconciliation. Insurgencies of this nature typically conclude through military operations and political efforts driving some degree of host-nation reconciliation with elements of the insurgency. In the Afghan conflict, reconciliation may involve GIRoA-led, high-level political settlements. This is not within the domain of ISAF's responsibilities, but ISAF must be in a position to support appropriate Afghan reconciliation policies.

Oh, and I found a searchable copy pastable version of the Assessment:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milit...an-assessment/090830-afghan-assessment-02.htm

Man, you are a drooling idiot.

McChrystal first indicated that he needed more troops five, nearly six (and certainly not a 'couple') weeks ago.

But hey, at least Krieg1981 agrees with you.

No you are the drooling idiot, for not understanding what perspective is. In comparison to over 200 weeks, 2 weeks or even 10 is just a couple.

HOWEVER that isn't even the case yet. McChyrstal didn't give the formal troop request until last week.

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Etymology-Meaning-Words-1474/define-word-couple.htm

[my emphasis]
I see what you did there. Although to tell the truth, McChrystal's request has laid on a desk in the Pentagon since September because politically it gave Obama more time to avoid making a decision.

I'd hate to think what that's got to be like: "We're getting hit with RPG and mortar fire from a ridgeline at Grid 32564112! Request immediate artillery suppression!"

"Yeah... Sit tight on that. See, if we did that right now, that'd make Obama look bad. We'll get back to you sometime later next month, m'kay?"

September 26 according to your link. Two weeks.



Again, as long as the correct decision is reached I am willing to him a bit of time.

The Afghanistan surge is scheduled arrive next Tuesday. Maybe.