No cut-and-run from Afghanistan
We don’t have the specifics yet — they’re expected after Thanksgiving — but it looks like President Obama has decided against a cut-and-run strategy:
Obama vows to ‘finish the job’ in Afghanistan
President expected to deploy 32,000 to 35,000 additional troops
WASHINGTON - Signaling an imminent decision on new troop levels for the Afghanistan war, President Barack Obama said Tuesday he intends to “finish the job” on his watch and destroy terrorist networks in the region.
The president said he would announce his decision on how many additional soldiers to deploy to Afghanistan after Thanksgiving.
The White House is aiming for an announcement by Obama next week, either Tuesday or possibly Wednesday, in a national address. Congressional hearings will follow immediately.
I’ll add more after I get off work.
Perry:
What cut and run strategy? There was none! Responsible/mature people realize that we cannot be in Afghanistan indefinitely, and that the Obama plan has to include an exit strategy, something the Bush people didn’t consider for their Iraq War or their Afghanistan War. At least this time we will have one. I am also hoping that his speech will include his homeland security strategy, because this has to be a part of the total strategy in this struggle against the anti-American terrorists.
24 November 2009, 4:31 pmDana Pico:
Perry, cut-and-run was at least an option, even if the President never seriously considered it.
Assuming that the story is accurate, there will be 32,000 to 35,000 additional troops deployed. Not quite the 40,000 General McChrystal requested, but without specifics, we can’t really judge why there was a difference.
24 November 2009, 5:55 pmYorkshire:
Dana Pico:
Perry, cut-and-run was at least an option, even if the President never seriously considered it.
Assuming that the story is accurate, there will be 32,000 to 35,000 additional troops deployed. Not quite the 40,000 General McChrystal requested, but without specifics, we can’t really judge why there was a difference.
I heard this build up may take 2 years plus.
24 November 2009, 6:48 pmYorkshire:
Perry:
What cut and run strategy? There was none! Responsible/mature people realize that we cannot be in Afghanistan indefinitely, and that the Obama plan has to include an exit strategy, something the Bush people didn’t consider for their Iraq War or their Afghanistan War.
I have to chuckle everytime I hear “EXIT STRATEGY.” Other than victory, what exit strategy do you suggest? Half the job and leave? Oooopps, wrong district? We’ll send troops for exactly 2 years, if not done, we leave? All exit strategy says to me is the enemy pulls back, give us a false sense of doing what we came to do, we leave, and they come back twice as strong. Unless you have a better thinking on this?
24 November 2009, 7:01 pmJeff:
Other than victory, what exit strategy do you suggest?
What’s victory, though? Eradicating al-Qaeda from the Hindu Kush? Destroying the Taliban? Establishing a stable democracy in Afghanistan?
One thing that was so frustrating about the Iraq War - and one reason why it likely took so long for the war to get going the way we wanted it to go - is that there was no clear sense of what our goals were. We went from removing WMDs to crushing the Baathists to defeating the foreign insurgents to creating a stable democracy, and it was only when we settled on that latter goal that we began to make progress.
Both Bush and Obama have, up to now, failed to clearly pursue a primary goal in Afghanistan, and it shows. Obama needs to choose a goal, and choose wisely. Let’s hope he has done so.
24 November 2009, 10:24 pmNangleator:
Give it up, Jeff. When you ask them what victory is, they just wave a flag and say “defeat the enemy!”
They don’t even try to give an answer like, “Leave when Afghanistan looks like Mayberry and all it takes is Andy Taylor and one deputy to maintain order indefinitely.”
I just wish the administration would define victory for us. Unfortunately, I believe the oil companies… oh, excuse me. I mean the oil companies– wait… I mean the government (oil companies) will press this war until a pipeline is built and defended, and all the oil that will ever flow through it has been burned in American cars.
24 November 2009, 11:14 pmJohnC.:
Again, has he been cleared of crazy?
24 November 2009, 11:27 pmblubonnet:
Hey, let’s listen to some Afghannis:
http://rethinkafghanistan.com/blog/?p=1010?utm_source=rgemail
25 November 2009, 3:11 amJohn Hitchcock:
Hey, blu, instead of linking to your bovine byproduct, why don’t you say something else? I mean instead of saying “Hey, I’m blu, and here’s a link to my bovine byproduct” you could actually say something, ya know?
25 November 2009, 3:33 amDana Pico:
The information is being doled out/leaked in dribs and drabs. This morning’s report was that the number of additional troops would be 34,000, but that they’d be introduced fairly slowly, perhaps taking two years to build up by that number. If it’s a “surge,” it’s a slowly-paced one, one which would seem to give the enemy time to adjust.
One rather clever thing the Obama Administration has done is to postpone the official announcement until after the Thanksgiving holidays: people will be back to work, and have less time to be able to discuss and criticize whatever is going to be done, because we don’t really have much information yet.
It has occurred to me, though, with all of the stories that the President, and especially Vice President Biden, didn’t really want to increase troop levels, and were feeling a bit sandbagged by the release of General McChrystal’s request for more men, that perhaps Major Nidal Hasan’s rampage at Fort Hood might have had something to do with persuading the President that we can’t afford to lose to the Islamists.
25 November 2009, 6:26 amPerry:
The sandbagging of the President by the military is unconscionable because it defies the tradition that politics is not supposed to be exposed outside of the chain of command, yet McChrystal’s leak clearly did that. Put that in with the fact that McChrystal was in charge of the Patrick Tillman friendly fire cover-up, leaves me with little regard for this man, nor confidence in him.
Before passing judgment on Obama’s decision to escalate our Afghan War, I will wait to hear his rationalizations and justifications. For me, a lot depends on how he will be using our troops. I am hoping that the emphasis will be on securing the population centers, training the police, military, and government officials, on building bridges with tribal leaders, and on rebuilding infrastructure that we have damaged or destroyed. There also needs to be a clear cut exit strategy presented.
Even with all this, I still wonder why we continue to play this whack-a-mole game with al-Qaeda. Even if they were defeated and driven out of Afghanistan, they have many opportunities to pop up again in any number of countries. Do we than attack any nation that harbors these terrorists, or do we focus on our homeland defenses as I mentioned several times on here before? Obviously, I choose the latter!
25 November 2009, 9:11 amblubonnet:
Excellent points, Perry.
Interesting, the Tillman incident happened when Tillman was planning on some interviews with Noam Chompskey, for one, because after he got to Iraq, he realized he’d been duped. I’m not saying I know for sure he was “neutralized” but it’s happened before, by our government/military.
If Afghanistan War continues, so will its recruitment of anti-Americanism. Bombs (big surprise) piss people off.
25 November 2009, 12:58 pmDana Pico:
The “exit strategy” must be victory, victory being defined as the Islamists being so thoroughly defeated — as in the leadership killed and the foot soldiers so cowed by defeat that they do not want to fight again — that Afghanistan will no longer be a willing host to those who wish to strike at us, and those who wish to strike at us are defeated, demoralized and unable to do so.
Nothing else will do. We can try to build bridges which show the Muslims of the region that Western lifestyles of capitalism, free commerce and tolerance of others is simply a better, wealthier and wiser way to live, something which would help with demoralizing the Islamists, but the utter defeat of the Islamists is the first priority.
25 November 2009, 5:38 pmNangleator:
Thanks for the detailed answer about victory, Dana. It sounds reasonable to me, for lots of different enemy countries. However, these people live in thousands of square miles of kitty litter in conditions hardly less miserable than the residents enjoyed before Alexander came through. I’m having difficulty seeing us change their conditions for the worse to a point where they give up. To them, dying in a good fight probably looks like a better than average day. Remember, some of them do believe in the 72 virgins thing.
It may sound socialist of me, but I like the strategy of fighting this war by shooting as little as possible, and improving the lives of everyone involved. Clearly show that the western way of living can offer them, as opposed to the sharia law of the Taliban, and we’ll ‘kill’ far more recruits than we can with guns. We’ll be killing off their recruiting far from where American soldiers are. We may kill recruiting in distant countries.
Help build up the infrastructure to the point where they can see their choice is an AK47 and a bowl of dust, or comfort, safety and peace. Give them something to lose, and they will want to live.
25 November 2009, 9:20 pmYorkshire:
Nangleator:
It may sound socialist of me, but I like the strategy of fighting this war by shooting as little as possible, and improving the lives of everyone involved. Clearly show that the western way of living can offer them, as opposed to the sharia law of the Taliban,
My son just got back from doing that stuff in Iraq for the last six months. One thing that is hardly mentioned is the many projects tackled by the Corps of Engineers in Iraq and Afghanistan. There have been literally thousands of projects to build roads, schools, hospitals, improve water, sewer and electricity for the Iraqi’s since we arrived there, and the same for Afghanistan.
http://www.grd.usace.army.mil/index.asp
25 November 2009, 11:27 pmhttp://www.aed.usace.army.mil/
blubonnet:
Thank you for the good news we so seldom get to hear, York.
26 November 2009, 4:00 amNangleator:
Yeah, that stuff makes me proud. Don’t know why they don’t advertise the facts better. Thanks, Yorkshire.
26 November 2009, 10:40 am