Is our prez going to send in more troops or what ? I thought during the campaign he was saying that this war was critical? Why isn't he listening to the Generals who are calling for more troops? The obvious reason is he doesen't want to lose his base, but come on and make a fukin decision. I'm not saying this war is winable but atleast make a firm decision and stand by it. Your thoughts ?

i know that I don't have know the facts about the situation that only the members of the armed forces, adminstration and the other people deciding how to fight the Afghan war are aware of to second guess any decision unlike the talking heads on the tube and radio.

We'll find out in a week.

I'm guessing he'll send in approx 35,000 troops with conditions on how to pull them out if the military's plans go in the crapper over there.

We don't want to get fully bogged down in Afghanistan. Just ask Russia.

This will sound weird after the past eight years of just shooting chit up, leaving, and letting the bad guys move right back in, but I think the Prez is actually trying to determine what the goal in Afghanistan is before sending folks in to do something...if that is indeed the case, then it seems to me that he's doing the right thing.

Fish on...

Todd

isn't that the truth. Question: what is our goal in Iraq??

At best, military intervention in Afghanistan is a loser. It's been called a war of necessity. Necessary I guess because the Taliban allowed bin Laden and Al Qaeda to function there. As a short term practical matter, it seems like we ought to bail, cuz we ain't gonna' win anything there. And no one has an idea of what "win" looks like. But if we leave, the Taliban is near certain to regain complete control of the country, and it would likely become a terrorist haven again. Great, no matter what we do, we lose. What a choice!

Maybe our goal in Afghanistan is to retain enough military presence to prevent the Taliban from controlling the country and Al Qaeda from operating from there. Not pretty, but what other options are realistic?

Our goal is Iraq is to leave, without it turning into an Afghanistan. Thanks to Bushco starting this stupid war, we may have developed the goal of having a major middle east military base, to keep an eye on Iran.

Sg

Easy.

To stay there and protect our investment until a US-backed and stable government is put it to place to further protect that investment.

We want cheap oil and we don't want Iran or Russia to get it.

If we leave Iraq, it will soon belong to Iran.

Or, just the stability of the Middle East and the rest of the world.

If Iraq were to fall to Iran, Israel would probably nuke the living crap out of everyone in fear of being..well..enemies against Israel.

From there, it would only deteriorate in to a 'nuther worthless fraking world war......as we would be *forced* to side with Israel.

I hope he gets some hair , (as fast as Parkers chia)

I am too ADD to read the stuff Hank posted.........

Go ducks

I don't think the General's recommendations mean much until we have got through the political process of deciding what the goal is, first. Once we decide on the goal, and the experts then advise Obama what is necessary to achieve the goal, then I think it will behoove him to choose amongst that advice and provide what is needed to achieve that goal.

Just sending the troops (tactical elements) in with no clear political or strategic elements is what BushCorp did, and we all see where that got us.

I think it was a mistake to have the General say anything at all when he did, because it's not his job to come up with goals, it's his job to come up with the tactics to achieve goals. At the time he was spouting off troop levels no clear goals had been made yet, so his numbers came with no meaningful context.

Fish on...

Todd

I'm glad the Prez is weighing his options, but it's now close to three months after he was asked for additional troops..Like my Father has always told me..." Fish or cut bait".

That's part of my point...he looks like he's "dithering" because it happened in the wrong order...he never even should have been asked for troops until two things happened:

1. He and his advisors decided what the stragic goals are; and
2. Advised the General of that goal, and asked him what he needs to achieve it.

Asking the General first was a complete waste of time...of course a General will always ask for more troops and more guns, it's what they do, especially with a complete lack of direction.

Fish on...

Todd

Point taken..I just remember Obama saying while he was campaigning that we should add more troops to that region and focus on Afghan..so it's not like this caught him by surprise..you know and I know that he is between a rock and a hard place politcally with this decision. I don't have a good feeling about this war.

I don't ever have a good feeling about any war...but this is one that needed to be fought, I just wish we had kept our eye on the ball there and avoided some of the mess we're in now.

Fish on...

Todd

Had Bush Sr. listened to Swarzkopff in the first place we wouldn't be in this mess.

I think part of the problem is that the U.S. is a very, very reluctant Imperialist country...we spend so much time pretending we're not that when we are doing clearly imperialistic things, everyone, on both sides of the aisles, stick their heads in the sand and pretends we're not.

We either are, or we aren't...being one and trying to act like we're not is clearly not working.

To really accomplish what we planned to do in Iraq and Afghanistan...remove the despots, install our own, and have everyone be cool with it takes decades, not weeks, or months...decades.

If we're going to continue the charade that we're not imperialistic, then we should stop acting like we are and get the hell out. If we're going to stay until the "job is done", whatever that means, then it would be useful to stop pretending what we are and what we're doing, acknowledge it, and then do it.

We want all the benefits of being an Empire without any of the effort required to do it, or the self-resentment of admitting it.

Fish on...

Todd

Exactly. Putting generals in charge of war only guarantees you get WWI's Vietnams and Afghanistans. Job security for them at the cost of finance and safety for everyone else.

WWI should have ended at the end of 1916, when Tsar Nicholas was deposed and Russia folded, and Germany offered to end the war, but it drug on in a stalemate for two more years at the cost of millions of lives thanks The UK Generals.

"We began the war with lofty aims but ended up with a war against the people."

Alexander Lebed, Soviet regimental Commander, Afghanistan




Lather
Rinse
Repeat

+243,567,485

Chalk Iraq up in the same group...

Fish on...

Todd

I agree, it's not worth it...and I think an honest assessment would have most everyone agreeing...but I can think of at least 40 Senators that would say we were cutting and running, and choosing to lose, if we did.

Guess what letter is right behind every single one of their names?

Fish on...

Todd