Admission Time: I Will Be VERY Disappointed In Obama On Tuesday Night

[WeDidIt]

if he DOESN'T increase Afghanistan troop levels by at least 30,000.

I think 80,000 would be more appropriate and would lead to a shorter time frame to accomplish the mission.

[bbinacan]

1. Interesting idea. n/t

[tabatha]

2. I wonder what Shinseki thinks.

[ClarkUSA]

27. Good question. We'll never know but I'm sure Pres. Obama has consulted with him.

:thumbsup:

[Ken Burch]

149. You're giving a thumbs up to another Vietnam

n/t.

[Cha]

31. Really.

<snip>

"Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, the retired Army chief of staff who presciently predicted that stabilizing Iraq would take more troops than had been committed to the invasion, pledged Wednesday to transform the Department of Veterans Affairs to better fulfill the nation’s promises to those who have served in uniform.

As President-elect Barack Obama’s nominee to head the second-largest bureaucracy in the government, behind the Pentagon, General Shinseki said that if confirmed he would streamline the disability claims system, use new information technologies to improve the delivery of benefits and services, and focus on unemployed and homeless veterans."


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/15/us/politics/15shinseki.html

It seems he got fired by bushcheney bc they didn't want the war on Iraq to be perceived as taking a long time.

What General Shinseki is up to now..

<snip>

"Secretary Shinseki Announces Next Steps in Technology Advancements to Reduce Wasteful Spending and Increase Accountability."

http://www1.va.gov/opa/pressrel/pressrelease.cfm?id=1734

[timeforpeace]

3. How do you define "accomplish the mission"?

[WeDidIt]

6. Stabilize the nation enough that the Taliban has no opening to take over again.

By doing that, you have no friendly government for Al Queda to leverage.

With an additional 80,000 troops, I think draw downs could begin in 2011 and we could be out by electio time in 2012.

With only 30,000 troops, that timeframe extends to 2014.

[Garam_Masala]

21. You said it better than I have been trying to say

in many posts here. It is really not that complicated to understand.
But so many DUers do not understand! Sigh!!

[WeDidIt]

29. It doesn't have to be perfect

Just stable enough to insure that Al Queda has no government that is compliant to their whims.

[Enrique]

65. I don't think that's the goal

Has Afghanistan ever been "stabilized"?

Has Afghanistan ever been in a state where it couldn't be taken over by radical Islamists or some other group which happens to win the civil war they are always in?

Do you think your 80,000 troops would really be able to accomplish that, ever? I doubt it.

I personally think that's not even the goal. I think they know they could never do that. I think the purpose of the surge is political, like most of the decisions in Vietnam starting with LBJ.

[boppers]

72. Afghanistan was stable 1920-1977.

In 1978, a leftist (liberal socialist) government tried to crash through "reform" (no beards allowed on men, no burquas allowed on women, no mosques, farmers owed no debt, interest on loans was limited), which sent the country into social chaos, and since the Soviets wanted another socialist state (and drilling and gas rights), they invaded to "help"...

We proxy fought back, trying to insure that radical Islamists were well equipped, and had the power to keep the state in chaos, and spent millions on radicalizing, and militarizing, Islam, in that part of the world.

Chickens. Roost.

[Soylent Brice]

157. i hope everyone reads your response.

[Bluenorthwest]

97. But you are not being specific at all

"Stabilize the nation". Using what methods? Stabilize how exactly? What is 'the nation' in Afghanistan? Karzi government? Which tribes get the cake, which the gravel?
What are these 'openings' the Talibs use to 'take over'? What is the nature of these openings and how does one close them? Specifically.
Your post says 'we go in and make thing better, then leave' and I have to say, that does not constitute a strategy at all. It just defines the need for one. "80000 go in do something, make it better and get out" is not what makes for military legends.
Share with us the metrics used to determine the time lines with the various numbers deployed. Because it seems to me you are speaking vaguely, without specifics, in a generalized way. Making up numbers and years. How long would it take with 100000? Any idea, based on the same metrics? Show your work, lives are at stake. "I think" and "stabilize" are not enough.
I'm going in, making them all love me, getting all the money, and retiring. That is my career plan. See any flaws with calling that 'a plan'?

[harun]

130. You do realize the current gov't of Afghanistan and our Gov't are trying to do

exactly the OPPOSITE right now don't you? Of course you don't, because you are an uninformed moron just like your original post reveals.

They need the moderate elements of the Taliban to work with the Gov't and in the current Gov't or they know it will fail. It isn't like the Taliban is going anywhere as it is the only group with any popular support and credibility.

[ZombieHorde]

135. "you are an uninformed moron" = Not cool. Attack the argument, not the person. nt

[Ken Burch]

150. Nothing our troops could do could ever make Karzai a legitimate leader

in the eyes of the Afghan people. Any more than bombing Hanoi or mining Haiphong Harbor could ever have made Diem, Ky, or Thieu legitimate leaders in the eyes of the people THEY supposedly governed.

A failed state can't be preserved by force, no matter how much force is used.

[Diamonique]

4. I'm actually more interested in hearing him explain to us...

what the mission is.

I want to know in clear plain language what exactly is our mission. What has to occur for us to be able to call it a win and bring our people home?

I want him to be specific about the mission and how he plans to accomplish it.

[earthside]

12. Precisely.

What mission?

To get bin Laden (or drive him into obscurity)?

To drive al Qaida out of Afghanistan?

Missions accomplished.

To Wal-martize Afghanistan?

To turn Afghanistan into a mini-USA?

To establish a non-tribal, central government in a country that has never had such an institution?

Missions impossible.

If Pres. Obama does as expected and escalates American troops into Afghanistan, it will be the biggest mistake of his young presidency.

[tblue]

13. Yeah. Defining the mission would be nice. nt

[harun]

131. I think this is what he will do very clearly and I will welcome it if he does this.

[YvonneCa]

159. You might enjoy...

...this: http://foreign.senate.gov/

[MadHound]

5. Answer a few questions for me then

What is their mission there in Afghanistan?

What will a "win" or a "victory" there look like, so we know when to bring the troops home.

Are you willing to put your own ass on the line, since you're so gung ho for a massive escalation, are you willing to sign up and go over there?

Hate to tell you this, but there is no winning this war. Guerrilla wars cannot be won by an invading force unless we literally lay waste to the people and the place, and we're simply not going to do that.

Instead, it looks like we're going to continue to pour men and money down a rathole until enough of the US public wakes up and forces us out of there, or until we break ourselves on the rocks of Afghanistan, like the Soviet Union did, and then come home a much lesser, and weaker country.

I'll be very disappointed in Obama on Tuesday night if he choose to follow the path of war, for it will ruin us all.

[WeDidIt]

8. Easy peasy

Mission: Stabilize the Afghan government to a point where the Taliban cannot walk back into power. Victory is that stabilization.

I served in the 80's. I tried to join up again in September of 2001. Wouldn't take me because I'm too old.

Hate to tell you this, but you have no concept whatsoever about modern conflicts.

Completing the mission in Afghanistan is our only choice. It could have been completed in 2005, but Bush fucked it up.

[LakeSamish706]

10. Even though the Afghan Government is as corrupt as any Govt. you will ever find! n/t

[WeDidIt]

11. That's the fucking mess Bush left Obama in Afghanistan

As I said, the mission could have been completed in 2005, instead Bush Junior invaded Iraq because he has an Oedipus complex.

[uberllama42]

66. Are you under the impression that we invaded Iraq in 2005?

Your posts read as if you think George Bush shifted focus from Afghanistan and invaded Iraq in 2005, but that's not the case.

[MadHound]

15. Apparently, despite the airs that you put on,

I know more about modern conflicts and modern war than you do. That you actually say that without actually knowing anything about me says a lot about you, none of it good.

That aside, point out to me any "stabilization" mission that has worked in the past forty years, ones that we haven't just simply gone in and blown it all to hell and gone. Oh, yeah, there aren't any.

As soon as we walk out of Iraq, as soon as we walk out of Afghanistan, instability will set in again. It is that simple.

Also, point out to me any guerrilla conflict where the invading force has ever won without laying waste to the country and its people, just once, ever, in modern history. Oh, yeah, that's right, there isn't one.

So you're perfectly happy to throw men and money down a rathole while you have no skin in the game so that Obama can look good and we can blow up brown people in revenge for some act that they didn't commit. What sick twisted fucked up thinking that is.

[Garam_Masala]

22. I can name THREE

Kosovo, Panama & yes Iraq.

[MadHound]

26. Fail

Kosovo we laid waste to

Panama was an in and out police action to grab Noriega, not a true war. We were there what, a few days.

As far as Iraq goes, well the first one we pulled out there leaving it unresolved, and the second one hasn't ended yet.

Thanks for playing, try again.

[ShortnFiery]

55. True. With regard to the Panamanian Invasion - Just Cause - that's the type of "in and out"

assault and maneuver that we should have done in Afghanistan to flush out Bin Laden. Except we should have gone full bore with our own SF instead of sub-contracting it out to the natives.

I lived in Panama immediately after Just Cause. Even with as "neat" operation as it was, there were FAR too many civilians who were slaughtered in the crossfire.

IMO, that's why we should never send our troops to Kill and Die in our name without a true "justification" and "a clear exit strategy."

[MadHound]

64. I agree, that's the type of operation we should have done with bin Laden,

However then we wouldn't have been able to fulfill that "carpet of gold or carpet of bombs" threat the Bush administration had made earlier.

Just Cause always seemed more like we were picking up the double crossing bagman in our coke ring than anything else. After all, Panama was the crossroads of the coke traffic, the same coke traffic that our CIA greatly expanded on in the '80's. God knows the roots of that run deep through Central and South America.

[quiller4]

133. We did not lay waste to Kosovo.

[MadHound]

137. Really?

A two and a half month bombing campaign, 38,000 missions, a buttload of Tomahawk attacks? I admit, this was carried out under the auspices of NATO, but face it, NATO is nothing more than the European arm of the American military machine.

I think that laid waste to is a good term

[ShortnFiery]

53. Hey, if you are basically ambulatory - not in a power chair - there's military CONTRACTORS who will

take you. Yes, GO SIGN UP because when "the shit hits the fan" you warmongers can NOT have my children.

Nope, American Patriot, you need to SET THE EXAMPLE.

[WeDidIt]

56. I'm very willing to put my life on the line for my country

I;'m not willing to put mjy life on the line for my corporate employer though.

Don;t want your children fighting in a war? Keep them from enlisting. That strategy works until they are 18 and can legally make the decision themselves.

[ShortnFiery]

73. Newsflash: Rumsfeld help PRIVATIZE these invasions. There are, numbers-wise MORE contractors ...

in Afghanistan than there are military personnel. Keeping our War Profiteers safe as well as the Corrupt Karzai THUG government is the PLAN.

NO, because folks like you are cheerleading for an increase in troops, we are MORE LIKELY to be hit again by a terrorist attack at home. Don't whine and bitch to me when the American People choose right wing nut cases because our Democratic Leaders didn't have the TRUE moral courage to pull our troops out of those two Middle Eastern Countries, and as a direct result OTHER CELLS all over the World are activated to hit us.

I will be angry with the present warmongers because THEN we just may have "a universal draft."

So yes, you go fight that corporate war that will piss away "a trillion" more of our tax dollars. You folks are, in essence, ushering in WWIII, there's no reason why you shouldn't have some skin in the game.

--------------

FYI the much beloved Phoenix Coyotes won tonight against the Dallas Stars. Woo Hoo! :silly:

[WeDidIt]

104. BULLSHIT

Give me a fucking citation for your numbers.

You won;t though, because it's bullshit.

[dflprincess]

61. Obama has said the U.S. is willing to "work with" the Taliban

so he doesn't seem all that concerned about how much power they do or don't have.

[Bluenorthwest]

101. You keep repeating the same vauge words

What specifically do you mean by 'stabilize' the government, what exactly does that entail? Define this 'point' of your that is the goal. What is 'the point where the Taliban' can no regain power? Define that point in time and space. How will you know you have reached that point?

"My plan is that we go there, do stuff, win, and leave." Great plan man, you should forward it to the WH. The part about how we somehow 'stabilize' Afghanistan is the best. The part you gloss over is the key. Stabilize how? You do not address that at all. Nor did Bush, the USSR, the British Empire (sun never sat, then sat) and others military mights for centuries. "We're gunna stabilize, troops, ready, start stabilizin'".

[Sinti]

146. So you're advancing the COIN operations? n/t

[ShortnFiery]

52. Well put!

Escalating the troop strength in Afghanistan will NOT make Americans more safe either.

It will be a horrific mistake and when disaster strikes at home and abroad, the American People will either become WARMONGERS and hold tight to a GOP ruling Executive and Legislative Branch OR we will FORCE the ruling elites to withdraw our troops from both occupied nations. I fear that The American People, when faced with another disaster and/or attack, will select the former.

The DLCers and Blue Dogs will, as expected blame the Liberal wing of the party for the monumental losses in both the 2010 and 2012 elections. If anything, those corporate democrats are predictable. :(

[valerief]

7. Ah, the poppy mission! nt

[lillypaddle]

9. you are very brave

although according to another thread, noone posting on the internet is. However, you come very close.

[Raineyb]

68. Yeah it takes real balls to cheer lead for more war from the safety

of your computer screen all while NOT volunteering for said war.

Chicken-hawks are cowards by definition. I think you're confused about the meaning of the word "brave."

[lillypaddle]

86. I just meant

that he had to know this is a very unpopular stance, and was surely going to be flamed.

[TheCowsCameHome]

14. Let's declare bankruptcy now and save some anguish later.

[LakeSamish706]

16. I say we cut and run and let the Afghans sort out the mess.... Don't see...

a stabilized Afghanistan in my life time.... In fact all I do see are many more NATO casualties to come.

[Garam_Masala]

23. You want a re-run of pre-911 era?

I don't. I am just glad Obama is a smart dude and not cutting and running.

[LakeSamish706]

25. He may be a smart dude... But I don't see Afghanistan being winable....nt

[Stargazer09]

67. Afghanistan is NOT winable

The Soviets learned that lesson the hard way, and it seems we're destined to make the same mistake. No military surge is going to work there, and all we're going to do is cause more of our military members to come home in coffins.

[Garam_Masala]

120. Soviets never experienced a 911

before their invasion in Afghanistan. The soldiers therefore
had no big motivation to win.

President Obama is NOT trying to "win" militarily in Afghanistan.
His main objective is to STABILIZE that country with a regime who
will be friendly to US and democratic. Similar to Iraq.

[Stargazer09]

122. True, but...

President Obama cannot stabilize Afghanistan as long as the country's government is corrupt, and there's no real way for us to fix that corruption. It's a losing battle, no matter how they define the objective.

Bin Laden's trail has already gone too cold to bring him to justice for 9/11. So why are we still there?

We are not going to be able to stabilize that country. Just because some military generals haven't read up on their history doesn't mean that adding more troops is going to make any difference whatsoever.

[Garam_Masala]

125. I agree, corruption is a difficult nut to crack

but it is worth a try to reform Karzai regime from corruption.

[dgibby]

158. Of course,

the fact that WE were waging a proxy war against the USSR by inventing and funding Al Quada/Taliban is totally immaterial to the outcome of that war, right? :sarcasm:

[spiritual_gunfighter]

91. Condi is that you?

You know mushroom clouds and all.

[Garam_Masala]

119. Nope, and I thought you had died in Twin Tower collapse

back in 2001.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

121. Fear mongering and using the same term Republicans used for 8 years?

You sure you are in the right place?

[Garam_Masala]

123. Definition of Fear: Trepidation about imagined possiblities

Reporting of ACTUAL incidence is not fear mongering. But that is typical
of you accusing me of RW talking points when you has no logical counter point.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

124. I wasnt sure if you were fear mongering or

writing a death threat to me, you should think before you post.

[Garam_Masala]

126. Naw, no death threat...I am pretty non-violent person eom

[spiritual_gunfighter]

127. Not according to your post

Again, you should think before you post and not post things that could be interpreted as wishing death on someone, I havent reported you but maybe I should, at the very least it was a disgusting and insensitive way to prove a point by using the victims of 9/11 and at the very worst it was a veiled death threat. Enjoy your stay.

[Garam_Masala]

128. But it was OK by you for him/her to accuse me of

being Condi and fear mongering etc.?

And by the way a death threat is when you tell someone you are going to kill them.
I never said that..please re-read my post. I was replying him with another ridiculous
answer to match his.

And if you want to report me for that, I can't stop you.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

129. It is not okay to use the victims of 9/11 to prove a point

and claim that you thought I was one of the victims in the twin towers. There are people on DU who were at the WTC on September 11th and I and those who

were directly affected by 9/11 might find your post

to be offensive. You have said in your posts in this thread that you are glad we are not going to

"cut and run", you have argued that "if we dont fight them over there we are going to fight them over here". You have used more right wing catch phrases

and rhetoric in one thread than I have see by anyone on DU in some time. You have a very low post count, and while I never make an issue of that in other

posters, your rhetoric in this thread causes me to wonder if you are on the level. George W. Bush was proved wrong on

his rhetoric and bullshit, so why are you using it in your arguments?

[Garam_Masala]

132. Must be somebody else!

I don't recall ever having said "if we dont fight them over there we are going to fight them over here".
You might have seen that on someone else's post. What is the post # ?

But I get your point about victims of 911.

Finally I am happy the president has decided to keep the fight going to keep Afghanistan
from Taliban takeover.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

138. You said you dont want a rerun of 9/11 so we have to escalate

troop numbers. Sounds like "we have to go and fight them over there so we dont fight them over here" to me.

[Garam_Masala]

143. Great job of extrapolation!

May I call you Dr Extrapolate?

Do you classify terror by major Hasan as fighting here?

[spiritual_gunfighter]

144. You are a joke

You use the victims of 9/11 to prove an idiotic point and at the same time wish death on someone. I will remember not to take anything you say seriously. People on DU were at the twin towers that day and I am sure they will love to read your insensitive remark. Fucking idiotic.

[Ken Burch]

152. Well, you're glad to cheerlead for violence against the people of Afghanistan

And the deaths of thousands of OUR troops.

Your view on this is scarily close to saying "it's okay when OUR guy does it".

[sudopod]

17. You think we should give the Taliban an eviction notice, eh?

:3

[KansasVoter]

18. You served so you know everything about war. Wow.

[Clio the Leo]

19. I'm rec'ing this thread just for your demonstrating the balls you have...

.... to post such a thing.

lol, I neither agree or disagree but man .... that took some courage!

[BeFree]

20. I can only pray

That you are very disappointed.

But not to worry, you will be a very small minority of people. So what you feel will be next to nothing and hundreds, maybe thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of lives will be spared the misery that would make you happy.

Because there is no way America nation builds Afghanistan without utterly destroying it first.

[LakeSamish706]

24. I seriously don't think that there is much left to destroy in Afghanistan...

What the Russians didn't destroy, Bush and company did. I think it would be cheaper (and less blood shed) to get all of souls that live their (who want peace) the hell out of the country and settle them some place else. Then blow the living shit outta whats left.

[BeFree]

28. Heh

I'd venture to say that most Afghans would tell you to go straight to hell, bigshot.

[LakeSamish706]

32. And thats more the reason that we should just cut and run IMO... There is no...

such thing as a win in Afghanistan (or at least no one has defined one yet that I am aware of).

[backscatter712]

30. Does Obama have a plausible victory plan?

Perhaps with all the strategy meetings and deliberation, Obama actually got a plan put together to achieve victory in Afghanistan. If he pulls it off, it'd be one hell of a coup, though I don't think actual honest victory is achievable.

[polichick]

33. Should we send hundreds of thousands to EVERY country that hosts...

...terrorist training camps?! How idiotic.

[WeDidIt]

34. Only those that launch direct attacks on our country n/t

[polichick]

35. So in your mind Afghanistan launched a direct attack on our country?? nt

[WeDidIt]

36. The Taliban was ruling Afghanistan in 2001

The Taliban had as official policy hosted the Al Queda terrorist orgnaization that launched the 9/11 attacks.

That makes Afghanistan and the Taliban as culpable for 9/11 as Japan and the rulers of that nation for Pearl Harbor.

[polichick]

37. There are other countries that host terrorist camps...

It's ridiculous to think we should send troops in to occupy them. The country of Afghanistan didn't attack us.

[WeDidIt]

38. Those terrorist camps are not responsible for 9/11.

Afghanistan DID attack us because they by force of policy invited the organization tht DID attack us to operate freely in their nation.

Ergo, Afghanistan DID directly attack us.

[polichick]

39. That's silly. The next attack could come from any number of camps...

Occupying countries won't solve the problem. Smarter to work with our allies and use small groups of highly trained individuals to destroy camps all around the world.

[WeDidIt]

40. And any nation that is openly hosting an organization that attacks us has directly attacked us

and deserves its fate.

[polichick]

41. Sure the Taliban deserve what they get, but the citizens don't...

And it's not going to make us safer to use so many resources on this one country when there are camps all over the world.

[WeDidIt]

42. The citizens live there

That's war.

Reality can suck some times, but you can't get around reality.

[polichick]

43. Lol - yeah, and the reality is Afghanistan DID NOT attack us. nt

[WeDidIt]

44. Wrong

They did.

[polichick]

45. Yeah, keep telling yourself that. I suppose it would be okay with you...

...if bombs fell on your house because some U.S. assholes sold arms that ended up killing people in another part of the world.

Weapons are the only export we currently lead in, ya know. The U.S. is not exactly blameless when it comes to aiding violent groups.

[WeDidIt]

46. That's what war is.

War means fighting and fighting means killing.

[polichick]

47. You missed my point. Just as the Taliban helps terrorist groups by...

...allowing training camps, the U.S. provides arms to thugs all over the world. If it's okay for Afghanistan's citizens to pay the price, it must be okay for your family to pay the price too.

[WeDidIt]

48. The US is NOT allowing terrorist organizations to operate freely within our borders

When Blackwater plots then attacks another nation, you'll have an argument.

[polichick]

49. Actually, the U.S. trained some of those terrorists to fly those planes...

You have an extremely simplistic view of the situation.

[WeDidIt]

51. Actually, your view is the more simplistic

Sorry, but good bye.

[polichick]

113. I accept your surrender! :)

[ShortnFiery]

57. Then go sign up for one of the War Profiteering Contractor positions?

They'll take anyone "out of a power chair." Hell, they'd love you because you're read on and part of the warmongering bandwagon. Please GO, then maybe when all hell breaks loose YOU can take my child's place. The government sure as shit can't have my children for UNJUST Military Occupations.

Maybe they'll bend the rules and take you so please TRY again? Really, they NEED you.

[Bluenorthwest]

103. Ah so now we know what you meant by 'stabilize'

You meant killing people. I thought war in this case meant stability, window closing on the Taliban, reaching a point, and leaving in 2012. You left out the killing a bunch of civilians part, just as you left out the part about how exactly you would 'stabilize' the nation. First, build a nation, then what? Kill more civilians or what?
If war simply means killing, then you are simply arguing in favor of killing. Certainly this is the most specific you have been in your mongering thus far. Your plan is to go there, kill people until it is stable, then leave. Not exactly a holder of a commission, were you?

[ShortnFiery]

59. By your (and GWB's) logic, David Rovics and I would APTLY conclude that we ought to BOMB OURSELVES.

:crazy:

http://www.last.fm/music/David+Rovics/_/Bomb+Ourselves

[spiritual_gunfighter]

88. Are you going to be so gung ho when we invade Syria?

I am sure you are aware that there are more Al Qaeda fighters in Syria than in Afghanistan, right?

[Bluenorthwest]

102. How do you explain all the administration talk of working with

what they term 'moderate elements of the Taliban'? You say we are going there to destroy a group that attacked us, but the WH says they plan to work with 'moderates' from that group, which tells me they do not see that group as culpable for 9-11. Or do you think some of them supported that attack moderately from the Afghani center? The centrist Taliban, that is what they say they wish to 'work with'.
So your framing might not fit what the President will say.

[Sinti]

148. Pearl Harbor. Do you mean:

Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a
new Pearl Harbor.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

From the Project for a New American Century? Really????

You do realize they offered him to us, right?

Afghanistan's deputy prime minister, Haji Abdul Kabir, told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US.

"If the Taliban is given evidence that Osama bin Laden is involved" and the bombing campaign stopped, "we would be ready to hand him over to a third country", Mr Kabir added.

Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over Sunday, October 14, 2001

They wanted evidence - would you have wanted evidence if you were them?

This is from the Guardian. I hope that's a mainstream enough paper.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5

[spiritual_gunfighter]

92. Considering there is less than 100 members of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan

I can think of about 5 countries off the top of my head that we should be invading before escalating in Afghanistan. Does the OP want to invade Syria and Saudi Arabia as well?

Taliban Surpasses Al Qaeda in Afghanistan
As violence rises in Afghanistan, the power balance between insurgent groups has shifted, with a weakened al-Qaeda relying increasingly on the emboldened Taliban for protection and the manpower to carry out deadly attacks, according to U.S. military and intelligence officials.

The ascendancy of the Taliban and the relative decline of al-Qaeda have broad implications for the Obama administration as it seeks to define its enemy in Afghanistan and debates deploying tens of thousands of additional troops.

Although the war in Afghanistan began as a response to al-Qaeda terrorism, there are perhaps fewer than 100 members of the group left in the country, according to a senior U.S. military intelligence official in Kabul who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The official estimated that there are 300 al-Qaeda members in the tribal areas of Pakistan, where the group is based, compared with tens of thousands of Taliban insurgents on either side of the border.

Yet officials and observers here differ over whether the inversion of the groups' traditional power dynamic has led to better or worse relations. Indeed, it may be bringing al-Qaeda closer to certain Taliban factions -- most notably, forces loyal to former Taliban cabinet minister Jalaluddin Haqqani -- and driving it apart from others, including leader Mohammad Omar's Pakistan-based group. The shifting alliances, analysts say, could have significant bearing on where the U.S. military chooses to focus its firepower.

Although President Obama has said the United States must remain in Afghanistan because a Taliban victory here would mean a rapid proliferation of al-Qaeda fighters as they return to their pre-2001 sanctuary, Omar's faction seems to have distanced itself from al-Qaeda in recent months.

The shift appears to reflect Omar's growing confidence that his group can operate on its own, without al-Qaeda as its patron. "The Taliban have got the expertise, they have got the resources, they have got the momentum," said Richard Barrett, coordinator of the U.N. Taliban and al-Qaeda Monitoring Team.

The Taliban and al-Qaeda have long enjoyed a symbiotic relationship. The Taliban, composed primarily of ethnic Pashtuns from Afghanistan and Pakistan, has offered haven to the Arab-led al-Qaeda in exchange for money, weapons and training. When Omar ruled nearly all of Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001, he sheltered al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and refused to turn him over to the United States after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The subsequent U.S. invasion of Afghanistan forced Omar and bin Laden to flee to Pakistan.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/11/politics/washingtonpost/main5613564.shtml

[jeanpalmer]

50. Lame

Have you volunteered yet?

[WeDidIt]

54. Volunteered in 1980

They won't take me back. I'm too old.

[ShortnFiery]

60. But no worries, any number of Private Contractors will readily take you ... perhaps even Xe.

I don't know what the exact criteria are for MERCENARY Corporations. However, by your narratives it seems you know how to handle weapons and munitions. I wouldn't be surprised that the MERCs don't have the physical or AGE requirements of the USA military.

Hell, go CONQUER and please consider taking Chuck Norris with you? :evilgrin:

[Raineyb]

70. Figures. It's always the clowns who are too old or too cowardly to fight the wars

who are always so bloody gung ho for them. Better to let other people's children die while you wave pom-poms huh?

[WeDidIt]

99. I joined the military when it looked like we would go to war

so fuck off.

[freddie mertz]

96. The send your children or else shut up. nt.

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bluenorthwest]

105. Then explain HOW you'd 'stabilize' the nation.

Specifically. Declaring that if we need to fix the roof, you'd simply sprout wings and fly up with a hammer is not really a strategy as much as a fantasy. " We go in, win, and leave" tells us nothing at all about the tactics, methods, metrics, what you would consider 'acceptable civilian losses' and that sort of thing. Nothing is easier than proclaiming that others should go and do 'something', make 'victory' and come home for a party. The specifics needed to achieve that 'something' are the entire subject of discussion. And you offer no specifics at all. A child's view of war 'we go, we win, we leave'. Or to be more accurate 'others go, others win somehow, some of them come home alive.'

[freddie mertz]

110. The only specific in the OP is a call for 80,000 troops

Which is a mindless multiplication by two of the general' proposal.

I can only conclude that it was posted as warmongering flame bait.

[quiller4]

134. Actually it is the top end of the general's proposal. The general set

forth rationale for several deployment levels, the strategy behind each and the expected performance. The OP suggests that the general's highest level is correct.

[freddie mertz]

154. Generals always want more troops. Remember Westmoreland?

Light at the end of the tunnel?

You guys who so passionately want war, PLEASE go and fight it for us.

Otherwise, be good little Dick Cheneys, retreat to an undisclosed location, and keep it to yourself.

[freddie mertz]

109. Then stop agitating for others' loved ones to fight and die in this useless war

The previous administration has already blown this one.

It is not something we can win, nor can we even imagine what that "victory" would look like.

You are just too cavalier in your call for others to sacrifice for anyone with a conscience to abide.

Sorry.

[bertman]

58. That's pretty close to what the military staffers said to President Johnson back in '64. That

worked out really well.

[liquid diamond]

62. I leveled things out with my rec.

You had me going for a second. I thought you were one of those irrational pacifists crying for a hasty withdrawal. I hope the president takes aggressive action on Tuesday.

[ShortnFiery]

74. "I hope the president takes aggressive action on Tuesday."

I hope when we are struck again by al Qaeda as a direct result of world-wide activation of "cells" due to the USA combat troops occupying two SOVEREIGN Muslim Nations, that YOU are swept up in the FIRST *universal draft* of WWIII.

Please feel free to consider the above scenario armchair warrior?

[liquid diamond]

75. Whether we escalate the war in

Afghanistan or not, Al-qaeda will still be out to attack us. Were we in a SOVEREIGN Muslim nation when the 9/11 attacks happened?

[Bluenorthwest]

107. Yes we had our bases in their holy land

on that day. Saudi Arabia, home of Mecca, we had bases.

[uberllama42]

63. How many troops should we send to Pakistan?

By all accounts, al Qaeda has as much of a presence in Pakistan as in Afghanistan. Am I right to presume that you think we should take over Pakistan and occupy it until it has a government that will do what it needs to do to get rid of al Qaeda?

As I understand it, Somalia and Yemen are favorite hiding places of al Qaeda as well, because they are devoid of effective government. Should we embark on nation-building efforts there? How many nations should we attempt to remake in our own image? And how do we make sure we don't end up with Karzai-style regimes in all those countries?

[tekisui]

116. Whoa, now. You are getting ahead of the war march.

That won't come for a while. We have to get our super-surge in place, then a 'reason' to cross over. Our covert drone war is doing the prep work. We are building a uber-embassy in Pakistan for about $1 billion, then we can talk about troops going in.

[dionysus]

69. i think the time for that was 2002. it's too late now.

but obama's fucked either way. if he adds more troops, he's a warmonger.

if he withdraws, all the born again anti-war people will suddenly become humantarians and will say "how can obama allow this bloodbath" as the taliban takes over the country.

[Hippo_Tron]

71. Explain to me the logic behind your military analysis where do you get your numbers?

We're talking about sticking more troops in the middle of a civil war in a country that's about 650,000 sq kilometers. I think the troop increases we would really need to conquer and occupy the place are in the hundreds of thousands, not the tens of thousands. Furthermore, we would have to be willing to use our air superiority to absolutely terrorize the people into submission Dresden style.

The fact that we're only talking about tens of thousands means we're not really going to defeat the "Taliban". It's all a question of which "Taliban" factions we're going to leave the country in the hands of and under what terms.

[IndianaGreen]

76. would lead to a shorter time frame to accomplish the mission?

Half a million troops could not fix the situation in Afghanistan!

[SKKY]

77. I really don't think we should get wrapped around the wheel too much on troop increases...

...the big test, and the one that will mean success or failure will be the bench marks he sets for the Afghani administration and the consequences for not meeting them. That's what I will be paying attention to. We're going between 32-34K more troops, throw in an additional 5-7K Nato troops. That will get us close to 40K. But, we can throw the entire Armed forces at this, and unless Obama has put together a good plan, we're just another Russia in the 80s.

[ShortnFiery]

78. No "master plan" is going to pacify Tribal Peoples of disparate cultural backgrounds.

It's Mission Impossible.

Our only hope now is if NATO only half heartedly supports us and we are FORCED to pull out by our "allies" ... Heaven knows the citizens in their countries DO NOT SUPPORT a troop escalation.

[SKKY]

80. I don't agree, and it's not the Tribal Peoples we need to be concerned with...

...it's the everyday Afghanis in Kandahar, Kabul, etc. They don't support a troop escalation because they're basing their assumptions on the past. Obama shows a clear and reasonable way forward, the NATO countries will support us. That's why I think his plan is so important. NATO's support hinges on it.

[ShortnFiery]

83. The NATO countries will soon abandon us. It's only their basic respect of Obama

MUCH MORE than the half-wit GWB which is keeping them in the game at all.

No, Karzai's thuggish government has fair control over the CONCENTRATED population centers. The people who truly DESPISE us are the "tribal peoples."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjE2wMWMJwI&feature=player_embedded

[bigjohn16]

79. So thousands of years and multiple empires couldn't pacify the region

but President Obama with 30,000 more troops is going to do it in just a couple of years? I have more than a few doubts about that happening.

[SKKY]

81. We're not going to pacify that region, ever, but can we get the...

...Afghani administration/police/military to the point where they're able to do the kinds of things that we're doing for them now? Sure, I think that's reasonable.

[bigjohn16]

82. So just a little nation building and then we're done?

The country is a patchwork of tribes it will never be stable without the intervention of outside forces or a major shift toward nationalism by the people. We could give Karzai guns and money to pay the Afghan Army so they could pacify the populous but that would never end. We'd just be propping up another strongman that would turn on us the second the money stops flowing or until someone made him a better deal. I don't think we should send more soldiers over there to die in Bush's quagmire which may become President Obama's come Tuesday.

[SKKY]

85. Well, I'm a bit more optimistic than you...

...but it's hard to argue with your points. It could very well turn into that. I hope not, but reasonable people would have to recognize that possibility.

[Bluenorthwest]

106. Gee, I'm 'able' to do lots of things, but if there is more money

in not doing them, well, that is where ability meets will. I think they are able now, but it is more profitable and empowering to be the corrupt hinge on the free swinging door. Gasoline is sold to us for $400 a gallon there. Think about the room such things leave for huge profit.
So you can somehow-you do not say how of course- get them to 'ability' will that mean they are also going to be willing to do the right things? Or will they just want us to keep doing the work, so they can be the corrupt hinge? It is right now our longest war in history.

[Ken Burch]

84. Obviously, the lives of those troops mean nothing to you.

The lives of the Afghan people mean nothing to you either.

This war is unwinnable. What happened to the British and the Soviets proves that.

[jeanpalmer]

87. I'll raise your 80,000

to 120,000....

[girl_interrupted]

89. WeDidIt Let me know when you reup

I will be happy to send you a care package. I know soldiers like my cousin will welcome someone like you, who will give them a break from the mind numbing back door drafts, one tour of duty after another. How thoughtful of you. Anyone else in your family that may be interested? Like a son or a daughter or a niece or a nephew? All are welcome! It's so reassuring to see someone who supports further escalation, to go support it in person.

Oh and this may interest you too:



Rep. David Obey to Obama: If You Want A War, You Should Pay for It

"Nice to know I'm not the only person who feels this way. Because if Obama's serious about health care (or anything else), why continue to pour money down a rat hole? That said, what are the odds the congressional war lovers will vote for it? I'd love to make them explain why:

"The powerful chairman of the House Appropriations Committee has a stark message for President Obama about Afghanistan -- sending more troops would be a mistake that could "wipe out every initiative we have to rebuild our own economy."

"There ain't going to be no money for nothing if we pour it all into Afghanistan," House Appropriations Chairman David Obey told ABC News in an exclusive interview. "If they ask for an increased troop commitment in Afghanistan, I am going to ask them to pay for it."

"His demand for a new war tax echoes a similar call by Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin, also a Democrat, who recently told Bloomberg's Al Hunt that he favors a new tax on Americans earning more than $200,000 a year to pay for sending any additional troops. Obey argued that the tax should be paid by all taxpayers, with rates ranging from 1 percent for lower wage earners to 5 percent for the wealthy"


http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/rep-david-obey-obama-if-you-want-war


Nothing like putting your money where your mouth is! I know you will support this too! Can't just expect the soldiers to sacrifice. Especially in this difficult times. We should all share the burden! Best of luck to you!

[WeDidIt]

140. I tried to reup in 2001 (don't tell my wife)

They wouldn't take me. I was too old.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

90. Where were you for 8 years

Did you support George Bush's war back then? What is your reason for wanting to be in Afghanistan?

[jeanpalmer]

93. I tried to put

the :sarcasm: in there, but it didn't take. And it's too late to add now.
I just assumed the OP was written in the same vein. Although as I go back and read it again, maybe not.

Whatever. I don't support being in Afghanistan and have already decided, along with my kids, that we won't be voting for Obama in 2012, or any other year, just because of the extra troops he has already sent. I won't vote for an war escalating imperialist. This extra escalation is the nail in the coffin.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

94. Oh okay I get it now

The OP was quite serious. I am in the same boat as you and I often wonder if some of the stuff people are posting lately is sarcastic, unfortunately it isn't. It seems like some of these people went off the deep end when Obama became president, trying to defend policies no one would have stood for if George Bush had done it.

[freddie mertz]

95. When are you signing up? Your kids?

I hope you and your family are contributing directly to this escalation.

Cause you seem more than willing to spill the blood of others in pursuit of your dreams of "victory."

[Robb]

100. Got a plan?

...Because abandoning a war-ravaged Afghanistan worked so well for Reagan and Bush I.

[freddie mertz]

108. No I do not.

It is a mess. But I am pretty sure that 40 or 80,000 troops will not fix it.

We have already blown it there, best to find a way out now.

[Robb]

111. And I'm am quite sure, thanks to history, that

...just splitting will not fix it either.

[freddie mertz]

112. What does fixing it MEAN?

It is a civil war.

A regional, ethnic and to some extent ideological CIVIL WAR?

Is this really our concern?

Are we going to be able to solve it by sending more troops?

I don't think so.

[Mira]

114. Do we HAVE 80 000 trops? Just askin' not agreein' N/T

[tekisui]

115. No, we don't.

We have about 40,000 battle ready troops. After Obama's Surge, we will have some 5,000-10,000 ready for any and every threat to this country.

[Mira]

117. Thanks, Tekisui. I thought so. What is the purpose of this post, then?

Overnight Drafting of our young?

[tekisui]

118. Who knows.

Our military is broken. I posted a chart that shows we already have over 74,000 private contractors in Afghanistan. That number is likely higher. We simply don't have the resources to keep fighting these wars.

[burning rain]

136. Tired of wasting my time writing individual replies to this sort of arrant nonsense.

So see here.

[jonnyblitz]

139. yeah i don't have much patience for warmongering chickenhawk

Obamabots myself.

[QC]

141. Oh please, what do you know about combat?

You need to STFU and listen to our Keyboard Kommandos.

[Starry Messenger]

142. I believe you misplaced this:

[Sinti]

145. What is the mission? n/t

[shadesofgray]

147. And you'll be one of those 80,000, right?

[QC]

151. Not unless they send in the Chairborne Rangers. n/t

[Tripmann]

153. Some of the nievity on this thread is staggering

What is the mission objective?

Stabilise the government? Karzai barely even controls Kabul. Its not going to happen. And if by some miracle it did, karzai is still a corrupt illegitimate cheat who is signing away womens rights.

The coalition are currently fighting multiple enemies: ordinary afghans, tribal leaders and their forces, taliban and a small number of al quaida.

There is no victory possible. Its called the graveyard of empires for a reason. FFS get the troops home NOW.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

155. Wow.

I just read your signature line.

That says everything I need to know about you and what to think of your opinion on any matter.

[Beacool]

156. Then you will be jumping for joy.

The rumor mill says that he's decided on 35,000 more troops.

:eyes:

[RoccoR5955]

160. You're nuts!

He needs to get OUT of Afghanistan AND Iraq as soon as possible. Then get our troops out of all of the Middle East. It's the only way to get the Taliban off their kick.