Breaking: 10,000 more troops to be deployed to Afghanistan.

[babylonsister]

On m$nbc, will post link when able.

[Occam Bandage]

1. I would approve of this ordinarily,

but recent news out of Pakistan (being the Pakistani government's effective surrender to the Taliban in the Pakistani northwest) has significantly dimmed my hopes for peace in Afghanistan. Unless we can either pressure/entice Pakistan to reverse this trend and fully govern its own territory, or we can convince the Pakistani government to allow American forces to effectively hold the border region, we're simply wasting time and money in Afghanistan.

[NeedleCast]

2. Yup

[FiveGoodMen]

3. What do we expect them to accomplish?

[Occam Bandage]

6. To hold currently ungovernable territory long enough

for peaceful reconstruction efforts such as schools and agricultural programs to take root. Unfortunately, given that Pakistan has all but officially ceded the border region to Taliban control, NATO troops can do no more than delay the inevitable until and/or unless Pakistan engages in a drastic about-face on its policy towards the Taliban.

[Bigmack]

4. ObamaNam... nt

[Ganja Ninja]

5. He better watch out or he might become Lyndon Johnson. n/t

[Occam Bandage]

8. The comparison is better than most people know. Afghanistan

risks being more like Vietnam than Iraq did, though I do not expect the toll of blood or of treasure in Central Asia to remotely approach either of the other two. Iraq was (and to a lesser extent still is) a complex mix of terrorism, insurgency, and civil war, each different problems with different solutions. However, Iraq was and is "fixable," as Saddam Hussein demonstrated so aptly. That is not to say that America should have spent the money and the lives that it did, nor is it to say that Iraq is better now than it was when we invaded, but the situation was/is not a hopeless one. It was/is simply one that costs far more to solve than it is worth, and as such one that any sane person would have left alone.

Afghanistan, on the other hand, is like South Vietnam: a relatively simple problem, being an asymmetric war fought purely on the defensive, in which we are attempting to outlast a guerrilla army striking from across borders that geopolitical reality prevent us from crossing. It is simple to describe, and it is equally simple in its solution: there is none. Vietnam could not have been won short of enormous manpower and full territorial control of Southeast Asia, which was absolutely impossible for a multitude of reasons. Winning Afghanistan, similarly, would require full territorial control of the Afghan-Pakistani border region, which geopolitical reality prevents us from doing.

I believe Afghanistan was quite winnable two years ago, somewhat winnable two months ago, and has been absolutely, utterly, point-of-no-return not winnable as of two days ago, barring any sort of diplomatic miracle.

[MadBadger]

7. The comparison between Iraq and Nam somewhat worked, because we had no right to be there.

How exactly does that compare to Afghanistan?

Edit: Let me answer my own question the way you will..."We had no right to attack Afghanistan either"

[FiveGoodMen]

10. Okay, what WAS the point of attacking Afghanistan?

Many countries have people that don't like the US ... should we attack them all?

Terrorist orgs are matters for agencies like the CIA. They might need military help if the group is big enough, but that doesn't make the whole nation our enemy.

If it turned out that Al Queda has bases in the US, should the world go to war with us?

[Occam Bandage]

13. It is not a matter of "Al-Qaeda having bases in" Afghanistan.

Rather, it was a matter of the Taliban protecting al-Qaeda by refusing to either hand over bin Laden or allow the United States to pursue al-Qaeda unimpeded. That was the casus belli. The deplorable treatment of the Afghan people at the hands of the Taliban only served to make the cause for war stronger. Had the Taliban complied with our (entirely reasonable) request and surrendered bin Laden for trial, there may well not have been that war.

To answer your question: If the United States was sheltering al-Qaeda, if it rebuffed all demands to turn over al-Qaeda leaders from countries that had been struck by al-Qaeda, and if it indeed declared that any foreign attempts to extract al-Qaeda leaders would be resisted, then foreign nations that had been attacked by al-Qaeda would have had a valid case for war with the United States.

[CountAllVotes]

9. just the type of "change" I did not vote for!

:mad: :grr: :argh:

:dem: :kick: !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[MadBadger]

11. Does this action surprise you?

[mdmc]

12. USA!

[Occam Bandage]

14. He was quite open about his plan to send additional troops to Afghanistan.

It shouldn't be treated like a betrayal, but rather as the continuation of a campaign promise you disagree with.

[TwilightGardener]

15. Obama has always said he would take troops out of Iraq and put them in Afgh.

[babylonsister]

16. Link: Officials: Obama OKs more Afghanistan troops

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2009/02/officials_obama_oks_more_afghanistan_troops.php

Officials: Obama OKs more Afghanistan troops

Defense officials say Obama approves several thousand new troops for Afghanistan war

ANNE GEARAN
AP News

Feb 17, 2009 15:42 EST

Defense and congressional officials say President Barack Obama has approved an increase in U.S. forces for the flagging war in Afghanistan. The Obama administration is expected to announce on Tuesday or Wednesday that it will send one additional Army brigade and an unknown number of Marines to Afghanistan this spring. One official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the total is about 17,000 troops.

That would be the first installment on a larger influx of U.S. forces that have been widely expected this year. It would get a few thousand troops in place in time for the increase in fighting that usually comes with warmer weather and ahead of national elections this summer.

Source: AP News

[chrisa]

17. I don't get it.

Wasn't everybody demanding that the troops be diverted to Afghanistan, where the real war is; and now everybody is bitching about the troops being in Afghanistan?

And wasn't Iraq supposedly supposed to be another Vietnam, and now Afghanistan is supposed to another Vietnam?

[Jack_DeLeon]

18. I support the fighting AQ and the Taliban, unlike the war in Iraq, but...

It seems to me that the real problem is in Pakistan these days. Hopefully we will be able to go after our enemies where they really are somehow and actually change the situation there. If not then this is just going to be a needless waste of life when we handicap our forces, not unlike Vietnam, or in Korea when we didnt target the Chinese massing on their side of the border.

If we arent able to get at the Taliban in Pakistan then this war probably wont be winnable and it would be better to just pull out so as not to waste the lives of our soldiers.