Gates Blames Past Lack Of Troops For Taliban Edge

[TacticalPeek]

Source: NYT

October 6, 2009

Gates Blames Past Lack Of Troops For Taliban Edge

By REUTERS
Filed at 2:32 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defence Secretary Robert Gates blamed the Taliban's revival on a past failure to deploy enough troops to Afghanistan and said U.S. forces would not withdraw whatever the result of President Barack Obama's strategy review.

"We are not leaving Afghanistan. This discussion is about next steps forward and the president has some momentous decisions to make," Gates said in a TV programme taped at George Washington University on Monday and being aired by CNN on Tuesday.

snip

Gates suggested U.S. and allied failure to put more troops into Afghanistan in the past, when then-president George W. Bush shifted resources to invade Iraq, gave the Taliban an edge.



Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/10/06/world/international-uk-afghanistan.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print

---

Bwaaaahahahahaha!

[shotten99]

1. You think?

[Hubert Flottz]

2. Sh!t Happens...

Gawd told Bush to invade Iraq.

[rosesaylavee]

6. Big Oil (which to W is the same) told * to invade Iraq. n/t

[Kolesar]

8. bush would have been regarded as a wussie if he just let the sanctions on Iraq expire

"Regarded" by the right wing, that is.

[krkaufman]

11. gawd == gust anuther W donor? n/t

[unhappycamper]

3. Did Gates ever talk to dubya about Afghanistan?

Or did he get as far as the appointment secretary for the Department of I-Don't-Give-A-Fuck?

[ShortnFiery]

4. One of the Ghouls from Iran-Contra is still spewing his venom.

:puke:

[elocs]

5. Afghanistan is twice the size of Vietnam and we couldn't control that country

with over 500,000 troops. No matter how many troops we have there the insurgents, the Taliban will simply melt back into the population or run into Pakistan. Unless the Afghanis want their own country more than the Taliban wants to take it and unless they are willing to fight and die for their own country, it will never be theirs.

[offog]

7. Great observation, elocs.

And the situation in Afghanistan is something that America contributed to because once the Russians were gone, America no longer gave a f*ck what happened to the people there.

[ShortnFiery]

9. Yes, now we can't get out?!?

I'm bookmarking this file because FAST FORWARD to 2012 when the neo-liberals on this board are coercing liberals to vote for Obama, I'll remind them that HE LOST his re-election TODAY when he allowed Gibbs, Gates and Clinton to spew the war machinery bile: Leaving Afghanistan is NOT AN OPTION.

If our combat troops are not fully out of Afghanistan and Iraq in 2012, it's NOT AN OPTION for me to vote for his re-election. :grr: :thumbsdown:

[elocs]

12. I am beginning to feel the same way. If Obama doesn't have the troops out by 2012

he has no incentive to do it in a second term. He has to know the history of Afghanistan and he has to know the history of Vietnam. I would love to hear him explain how knowing that, he can honestly tell us how our current occupation of Afghanistan will be different. This is the issue that will splinter the Democratic Party and allow a Republican comeback. I can envision great antiwar marches and rallies from the left not only from a point of opposition to the war, but also from a sense of betrayal.

[krkaufman]

10. Like trying to fight cancer with only a fifth the dose of chemo prescribed ...

... and for a third of the prescribed duration. The patient gets to suffer much of the associated miseries with the "therapy," but the underwhelming response allows the cancer to spread and gain a foothold throughout the body, to the point where no amount of later doses stands a chance in eliminating the tumors.

Failure to properly treat the problem at the outset doomed the effort.

[bemildred]

13. It's just hard to achieve your goals when you don't really know what you want. nt