Why did President Obama choose this particular path in Afghanistan?

[Are_grits_groceries]

I am still baffled by the choice he has made. I don't see anything radically new that hasn't been tried before in some shape or form. There are 3 big issues for me that must be taken into account. Any plan must be worth putting these issues aside.
1-The shape the military is in.
How can starting a major push in Afghanistan be accomplished without weakening what is left of our military?
2-The effects on the soldiers.
Will what we are trying to achieve be worth the deaths and the soldiers that will be wounded? Will it be worth it in terms of the effect on the mental health of the troops who are going through several deployments?
3-The cost of the war.
Our nation is in a precarious economic position. We probably will be for a while. We have many critical areas that are being cut because the funds aren't there. How can we justify the expenditures in Afghanistan?

I haven't been convinced at all that what is proposed is worth it.

I have wondered about a couple of things.
What is affecting the situation that is hidden from view? There is the 'secret' CIA war or whatever that everybody is disavowing. I'm sure that we aren't aware of a lot of other things. I don't know how meaningful they will be in reaching a solution..

The second thing I wonder about is the idea that I believe people can get when they take over some system with a problem. Many times there is an urge to try to fix it yourself no matter what has been tried before. There is this notion that I will do it differently enough to make it work. People can be loathe to do something radical such as pulling out the troops until they have tried to work it out themselves.

This is not just a reaction in a case like Afghanistan. It happens a lot when a change in leadership is made. If someone doesn't really make an attempt to fix a problem, they are accused of being a quitter or scared to try. The new leadership is supposed to enable a positive change. People want results even when those just put in charge are dealing with the same factors that haven't worked before.

The "I'm going to just give it a try" trap. People aren't satisfied that they should completely alter course until they have experienced the problems themselves. Unfortunately, when dealing with a situation like Afghanistan, the stakes are too high to keep reinventing the wheel IMHO.

[napi21]

1. I think he had no good options and the military advisors stated

they absolutely could accomplish their mission. I think what he said was, OK, I'll give you 18 months to prove it! If you fail this time...it's over!

I obviously don't know anything more than you do, so my thoughts are pure speculation, but I believe he didn't want to do a cold pull out because the risk of emboldening al Qaeda by what would look like a defeat was too great.

[Are_grits_groceries]

3. I think there are a lot of issues.

I don't think anything that his advisors are proposing is very new. They just have to try something with him in charge, and he wants to do it too. It's the definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results.

I'm speculating too. I think there is a lot of 'face' tied up in this decision.

[Vinnie From Indy]

2. It is hard to really know for certain right now

You can be sure that Obama made this decision based on domestic political considerations! Obama knows that BushCo and the extremist right wing undoubtedly had long ago prepared to hang all of GW Bush's failings on him should he leave abruptly. The scripts were just sitting there ready to be emailed to Rush, Fox News and the rest of the right-wing propaganda megaphone. Had Obama ordered an immediate withdrawal, he would be painted as the man that let the "terrorists" win.

I think Obama also knows that if he had ordered an immediate withdrawal the BushCo faction of the GOP would have him right where they want him should there be ANY attack on American soil. It would be hung around his neck and that of the Democrats in an orgy of fear mongering. Keeping the troops in Afghanistan gives Obama some protection from that scenario.

[RKP5637]

4. Interesting analysis. I think there's a lot of truth in what you say about having to

try a fix themselves. I'm sure that is driving a lot of it. Obama inherited an absolute mess. He's in a Catch-22. No matter what he does a lot of people will find fault with his decision. So right, "Unfortunately, when dealing with a situation like Afghanistan, the stakes are too high to keep reinventing the wheel."

A real concern I have is what is Afghanistan left with even if there is success. It's not the most stable country and supposedly we are not into nation building... so, IMO, we are going to be there a long time trying to keep Afghanistan glued together. At the same time we have serious problems here at home.

To me, we are all going to suffer considerably unless funding and effective actions start occurring the US.

[moondust]

5. Fear of failure.

Mujahadeen, Al Qaeda & Co. have been living/training/fighting/operating in Afghanistan and along the Afpak border for more than 20 years. They've made it their home and adapted to the terrain. It offers them hiding places and escape routes. They are not likely to pack everybody up and start over in a new home in Somalia or elsewhere that may not offer such favorable circumstances.

I think the Obama admin and military are afraid that if Afghanistan again falls into the hands of the Taliban the situation will revert back to something similar to 9/10/01--Square One--and all that has been expended over the past eight years in blood and treasure will have gone wasted, leaving someone else to start the fight all over again--from Square One.

[FrenchieCat]

6. I don't think there has never been an attempt to do much in Afghanistan

ever before.

The problems experience before were based on the fact that there was no strategy,
and not much in terms of troop numbers ever. Maybe for the lack of oil, I don't know,
but Afghanistan has been the hidden little step-sister of Iraq, for years
....so even if you believe this is "try again", I believe it's "Try it for the very first time"....and inasmuch,
it actually is this CIC's duty that we give it at least one try.

[Are_grits_groceries]

9. Ah. You are into the same trap IMHO.

What we are going to try now isn't much different than what has been tried before. I am not just looking at the last 8 years. I'm looking at the overall history of Afghanistan.

We are an outside force trying to deal with a myriad of groups and agendas. We are using force combined with variations such as paying the Taliban. In order to try our 'new strategy', we are going to work around the completely corrupt government lead by Karzai. The terrain we have to fight on is much worse than that of Iraq.

The admin is pushing to get the new troops in country quickly. I don't know how how good an idea this is if there isn't enough support to go with them. That could leave everybody lacking. If we go in fast, do we think that means we will get out just as fast? Do we think the Taliban will be surprised?

I still don't see anything that is that new. It may not have been tried for a while, but the proposals are not novel. We are rearranging the deck chairs. That's what happens in Afghanistan. Everybody moves around the chairs for a different view. We get a better position that provides a somewhat clearer look, and we think we can see the way to sail. However, the iceberg is still out there, and most of it is hidden. We aren't really trying something that will help us avoid the crash.

[pocoloco]

7. The simple but hard truth is that you don't fuck with the military

industrial complex!

You saw what happened to our last "peace" President. Not invading Cuba, talking to our cold war enemies Castro and
Nikita was bad enough but pulling 1000 troops out of Nam sealed his fate!

[anonymous171]

8. I think he really sees himself as the "Great Compromiser"

Which is sad because "Great Compromisers" are always shitty presidents.