Why are we introducing new troops into Afghanistan without a 'clear strategy'?

[bigtree]

Pentagon ready to beef up troops to Afghanistan without clear strategy
Gates says Pentagon ready to send 7,000 troops, but plan for using them lacking


January 28, 2009 -- The search for an Afghan strategy has been under way for months. A lengthy White House review was completed in the final weeks of the Bush administration. Parallel studies are in progress by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, by Petraeus and his staff at U.S. Central Command, and by the new White House national security staff.

Without a guiding strategy, top commanders and senior civilian officials are in disagreement over what missions the additional troops should be assigned, and how those missions could be coordinated with political and economic development efforts. Senior officials say the studies are not yet completed.

Troops deployed in Afghanistan have expressed confusion about whether their ultimate goal is to eliminate the Taliban or help Afghanistan become a viable democracy. U.S. officials say military objectives often undercut development work, and aid agencies frequently complicate military tactics.

"We need a fully integrated civilian-military strategy," Gates said yesterday, and to set "modest, realistic goals."

Obama is expected to meet with the Joint Chiefs at the Pentagon this week to hash out timetables for withdrawing troops from Iraq and deploying more troops to Afghanistan.


read more: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/politics/bal-te.gates28jan28,0,7175932.story

[TWiley]

1. Afghanistan is where the terrorists are; Iraq was about oil.

[bigtree]

4. Afghanistan's 'terrorists' mainly threaten our expansionsim there

They threaten our nation-building.

Everyone involved in this occupation acknowledges that those suspects considered responsible for the 9-11 attacks have enjoyed 'safe haven' in the mountains of Pakistan across Afghanistan's border.

It's revealing that the first 3000 troops sent to Afghanistan from Iraq will be deployed around the beleaguered Afghan presidency in Kabul . . .


NATO: 3,000 U.S. troops deploy near Afghan capital

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) -- Thousands of U.S. troops originally destined for Iraq have deployed south of Afghanistan's capital in the first illustration of a new military focus on the increasingly difficult fight in the South Asian nation, NATO said Tuesday.

Nearly 3,000 American soldiers with the 3rd Brigade Combat Team of the 10th Mountain Division out of Fort Drum, New York, moved into the provinces of Logar and Wardak to the south of Kabul, the military alliance said.

http://www.thonline.com/article.cfm?id=231086

[jakeXT]

2. Sounds like a strategy to me

Aides Say Obama’s Afghan Aims Elevate War

By HELENE COOPER and THOM SHANKER
Published: January 27, 2009

WASHINGTON — President Obama intends to adopt a tougher line toward Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, as part of a new American approach to Afghanistan that will put more emphasis on waging war than on development, senior administration officials said Tuesday.


- - -

They said that the Obama administration would work with provincial leaders as an alternative to the central government, and that it would leave economic development and nation-building increasingly to European allies, so that American forces could focus on the fight against insurgents.

- - -

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/28/us/politics/28policy.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

[bigtree]

5. strange then, that the first new contingent is sent to butress Karsai's regime in the north

[SmileyRose]

3. not all of Afghanistan is a war zone.

I would assume troops are being sent to the area so that as needs arise the talent is already mobilized in the general vicinity. Afghanistan is going to be A LOT more complicated than Iraq and probably will remain a very fluid situation for a very long time to come. I can't fault the Obama administration for still hashing out the short term plan to arrive at their long term strategies.

Anyways, that's my take on it. I was pretty disgusted with ShitAssInc's mistakes in Afghanistan but we need to be in there IMHO. If ShitAssInc had done it's jobs we'd probably be pulling out except for an advisory and support force by now.

[DevonRex]

6. Any review done under the * administration is just crap. And of course there's

confusion at the moment about the mission. These troops served under *, who changed his mind about the "mission" every time the wind changed direction. He went from trying to find OBL, to completely forgetting about Afghanistan, to thinking he was spreading "freedom" across the globe as if he were Tinkerbell spreading fairy dust around. What soldier wouldn't be confused after that?

Everything will be ironed out in due time.

[bigtree]

7. one of the 'options' I'm hoping they'll adopt is a light touch on defending Kabul

. . . and more precision in an effort strictly focused on the original mandate in the authorization to use military force which intends to capture or kill the fugitive suspects in the 9-11 attacks.

Right now, were mostly just using these troops in a perpetual battle against the resistance to their presence and in reflexive attacks against the Afghan villages and communities; as well as a cynical defense of the 'Mayor of Kabul'.

[madokie]

8. Are you sure there is no strategy?

Usually smart people make smart decisions and to not have a plan would not be smart so I question the premise.

[bigtree]

10. madokie, I'm reading several reports today which state military leaders are just now developing one

Gates said it yesterday and his comments were echoed by Mullen.

I don't think the military has a clue about the best way to pull our asses out of the 7-year mess Bush diddled with. And, I'm concerned that confronting the predictable expression of resistance to our presence there has become our perpetuating mission, rather than focusing on the original mandate to apprehend or kill those our government determined responsible for the 9-11 attacks.

Can you tell me what the 'plan' is for the promised escalation of force? One report claims that more 'warfare' is being favored in discussions over all else.

[madokie]

11. As if I was privy to that info

one report says this, one report says that, which report do I believe? I believe the one that says we have smart people working on the problem now is the one I believe. Hes been President for eight days and a few minutes. I have confidence in President O telling us the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help him. Thats what I believe bigtree. Nothing personal but I happen to have faith in the man doing what is right, making decision while he takes advantage of the superior intellect he and those arund him possesses. Questioning the Presidents every move and every word is not for me.
You, otoh like doing it so I'll leave that too you...

you write I reply, we both happy

oops traded an h for a t

[bigtree]

13. when do we begin questioning? After events have taken place?

Why does the administration bother to make these statements if they don't want the American public to make judgments on them? I really don't understand the notion of waiting to see what they do without commenting on their stated intentions before they commit our nation and our troops to some dubious mission which everyone recognizes as fraught with serious and potentially deadly consequences.

The argument that 'smart people are working on this' is just not going to suffice. It shouldn't. Where is Congress as the military and administration makes these decisions? The administration should not be allowed to exercise this authority in the same unilateral, autocratic fashion of the last administration. Vigilance and scrutiny is what our democracy requires to keep our leaders in check. It makes no sense at all to abandon that responsibility just because the military or the administration says they have 'smart people working on it'.

[spanone]

9. gates is hell-bent on keeping the military industrial complex churning...

[stillcool]

12. self delete

[bigtree]

14. right, empire

got it.

[stillcool]

15. Isn't it possible to accept...

the fact that as an empire, or if you prefer a super-power, there are logical reasons for all that we do? Don't the goals/needs of one directly impacting the goals/needs of the other... and why the stabilization of Afghanistan/Pakistan, and all the Middle-east is so important to the United States, need to be discussed? I guess not. I'll delete my post.

[bigtree]

16. I didn't mean to dismiss your argument

We've been through this before, you and I, no?

I think 'empire' is best advanced through mutual understanding and cooperation more than I believe in the sustainability or efficacy of nation-building behind the force of our military.

Also, I believe that our heightened military presence and actions in Afghanistan and Iraq (and Pakistan) have proven counterproductive and 'destabilizing.'